Did the disciples get it wrong?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I don't see anything they got wrong. Do you?

The Instructor

Well as I said, it is written that they all baptised in the name of Jesus, when in Matthew it says name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. Why do you think they interpreted Jesus clear instruction differently, Mr Instructor?

Originally posted by galveston75
None of this matters as "No man has seen God and lived". So you need to redesign your question with the correct facts first.

In my question, which "facts" are incorrect?

My question is:
Did the disciples get the instruction to baptise in the name of the father and of the son and of Holy Ghost wrong, when they all, without exception, baptised in the name of Jesus.

I'm enjoying this thread!

Originally posted by divegeester
Well as I said, it is written that they all baptised in the name of Jesus, when in Matthew it says name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost. Why do you think they interpreted Jesus clear instruction differently, Mr Instructor?

I think they did exactly what Jesus said. The name of Jesus is actually Yahshua, which means "Yah saves" and "Yah" is the name of God. And God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in unity.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think they did exactly what Jesus said. The name of Jesus is actually Yahshua, which means "Yah saves" and "Yah" is the name of God. And God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in unity.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

That's actually not a bad response Mr Instructor. Let me ask you, and I want the truth please. If you believe what you have just written, how we're you baptised? Father son Holy Ghost or in the name of Jesus?

Originally posted by divegeester
In my question, which "facts" are incorrect?

My question is:
Did the disciples get the instruction to baptise in the name of the father and of the son and of Holy Ghost wrong, when they all, without exception, baptised in the name of Jesus.

I'm enjoying this thread!

They are incorrect to you, if you believe they are incorrect. It is as simple as that.

I'm sure you are enjoying this thread because you think you have a point that can't be refuted. You are correct, it can't be refuted in your mind.

Congrats!

Originally posted by divegeester
That's actually not a bad response Mr Instructor. Let me ask you, and I want the truth please. If you believe what you have just written, how we're you baptised? Father son Holy Ghost or in the name of Jesus?

I was only twelve years old, so I don't remember exactly. However, It was in a Southern Baptist Church and the minister normally says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" just like is recorded in Matthew of the Authorized King James Version which was the version they used at that time.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was only twelve years old, so I don't remember exactly. However, It was in a Southern Baptist Church and the minister normally says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" just like is recorded in Matthew of the Authorized King James Version which was the version they used at that time.

The Instructor

Don't you think you should be baptised in the name of Jesus as was actually done every time and recorded in The Acts of the Apostles in Authorised King James Version which was the version your church used at the time?

Originally posted by divegeester
Don't you think you should be baptised in the name of Jesus as was actually done every time and recorded in The Acts of the Apostles in Authorised King James Version which was the version your church used at the time?

Well, I believe it is the intent that matters. I see no need to be that legalistic about it. However, if I did, I would ask to be baptized in the name Yahshua, because I believe that is more correct than the name Jesus. But the Church defintely taught the Triune God doctrine, because I remember singing, "Holy, Holy, Holy, God in three persons, blessed Trinity" a lot.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I believe it is the intent that matters. I see no need to be that legalistic about it. However, if I did, I would ask to be baptized in the name Yahshua, because I believe that is more correct than the name Jesus. But the Church defintely taught the Triune God doctrine, because I remember singing, "Holy, Holy, Holy, God in three persons, blessed Trinity" a lot.

The Instructor

Ha, that would be a bit of a clue to be sure!

Originally posted by Eladar
They are incorrect to you, if you believe they are incorrect. It is as simple as that.

I'm sure you are enjoying this thread because you think you have a point that can't be refuted. You are correct, it can't be refuted in your mind.

Congrats!

Sorry if I am annoying you. I think you will find that the atheists here are they who think they cannot be refuted.

I just enjoy the cut and thrust and banter. As I said when initially challenged on my language, the point can in fact be refuted, but the question in the title remains intact and valid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think it is standard practice when two verses disagree, to assume that you are interpreting one of them wrongly, and that one, is the one that disagrees with your theology.
Considering the amount of interpretation required to accept that the Gospels are in any way factual, I think it would be trivial to find some interpretation that resolves your dilemma.
You of course will not be satisfied with it because it doesn't fit your own theology.

I believe divegeester's point was that the two verses (this verse in Matthew and the baptizing in Acts) do NOT disagree.

But then I can accept that someone might make that mistake when they don't believe in the Bible at all ANYway. One wonders why you even have a horse in this race. But then one realizes that you really don't.

Originally posted by divegeester
Don't you think you should be baptised in the name of Jesus as was actually done every time and recorded in The Acts of the Apostles in Authorised King James Version which was the version your church used at the time?

The ones who get your point realize your position is that it really is the same thing anyways.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The ones who get your point realize your position is that it really is the same thing anyways.

To the regenerated believer the spirit validates if it is actually the same thing, however in contrast with the landscape of trinitarian error (my view) it is a huge differentiator. As Mr Instructor pointed out he, and millions of others, are baptised into the titles (pleural) of Father, Son and Holy Spirit rather the name (singular) of Jesus. The critical difference being a belief in 3 separate persons in the Godhead, a dogma which I believe to originate from gross heresy and is now widely accepted within the Christian faith. God is one single personal entity revealed in 3 offices or manifestations of his being. The fact that one does what the other says and one does not speak of himself is reflective of Gods glory and if you like, the functional duties of the 3 offices.

There is no such thing as "the eternal Son" because the office of sonship was created for the Father to become flesh himself, to dwell FULLY within, in terms of his Godhead i.e. him, who he is, but not in terms of his revealed glory. It is written in revelation that the son will hand over all things (including authority) to the Father and yet it is written Isaiah that the reign of the child that born to us shall be everlasting, how can this be? Only if it is exactly the same person, the same spiritual entity. ONE.

The revelation of the identity of Jesus Christ is the most divisive doctrine in the world, he himself said he had not come to bring peace on earth but that because of him family members will turn one against the other. Why? he's a good guy right? It is this identity aspect at divides the trinitarian from the JW, the Christian from the Jew, in fact the gospel of a trinitarian God will never be accepted by the Jews, they know better than we do that God is ONE.

Jesus said unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins. No wonder they picked up stones to murder him, he was saying that he was Jehovah incarnate. The name Jesus is the name that is blasphemed, not Jehovah, ever wondered why? There is no given power in the name of Jehovah. To blaspheme in the name of Jesus Christ carries with it a certain edge, it gets a grin from people because they feel that edge.

To baptise is to demonstrate, to emulate the regenerative power of the atonement, and the ONLY name given among men by which they may be saved is Jesus because to say this is to recognise who he is. Baptism is not about titles it is about the name of the family you are now a member of.

This is why I contend for it here.

Originally posted by divegeester
Sorry if I am annoying you. I think you will find that the atheists here are they who think they cannot be refuted.

I just enjoy the cut and thrust and banter. As I said when initially challenged on my language, the point can in fact be refuted, but the question in the title remains intact and valid.

You're not annoying me. I'm just pointing out the discussion you are trying to have. In other words, you are self righteous in your circular reasoning.

There is not thrust and banter. All you have is one group saying I'm right and you are wrong, while anyone who disagrees takes the same position from the other side of the board.

Originally posted by Eladar
You're not annoying me. I'm just pointing out the discussion you are trying to have. In other words, you are self righteous in your circular reasoning.

There is not thrust and banter. All you have is one group saying I'm right and you are wrong, while anyone who disagrees takes the same position from the other side of the board.

Please explain "self righteous in your circular reasoning"

Thanks