29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ or what?
why dont you teach and preach in obedience to Christ's command at Matthew 28:19,20
and in view of Pauls example at Acts 20:20? dont you believe the Christ's words?
(Luke 11:23) . . .He that is not on my side is against me, and [b]he that does not gather with me scatters.[/b]
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"In the name" is a term used to indicate by whose authority something is
I have not got the slightest idea of what you are trying to say, really, i have read your
text three times and it still makes no sense to me. Indeed are you trying to say that
this scripture is not true? Does it not state in the name of the father and the son? why
are you continually trying to diminish the role of the father, here and in oth ...[text shortened]... it, does it. We baptise persons in the name of the
father and the son, as directed by Christ.
done. It is like "in the name of the King" meaning "in the authority of the
King". Baptizing in the name of John meant they were disciples of John the
Baptist and they had been given the authority by John to baptize for John.
Those spoken of as baptizing in the name of Jesus meant that Jesus had
given them the authority to Baptize. Now finally, when Jesus told His
disciples to go baptize, He had been give all authority in heaven and on
earth, so He now can tell His disciples to go baptize in the name of God,
meaning by God's authority. He clarifies who God is by saying the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:18-20)
29 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesteryou have still failed to demonstrate that we are wrong to follow the clear direction of
Don't get tetchy, there is a Royal Wedding tomorrow 😉
I know lots of people who have been re-baptised into the name of Jesus. If you remember the other thread there was lots from me on this so I don't want to trawl over it again, except to say that I believe that Jehovah has revelled himself in Jesus and given him the "only name by which we may b the name of Jesus. I'm surprised you have never questioned this before yourself robbie.
the Christ, citing lots of scriptures in an attempt to diminish the role of the father wont
help you, its very plainly written for all to see. Royal wedding means absolutely
nothing to me, why it should be of importance, i do not know.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou have also consistently failed to answer any of the citations that are put to you, until
"In the name" is a term used to indicate by whose authority something is
done. It is like "in the name of the King" meaning "in the authority of the
King". Baptizing in the name of John meant they were disciples of John the
Baptist and they had been given the authority by John to baptize for John.
Those spoken of as baptizing in the name of Jesus meant ...[text shortened]... ifies who God is by saying the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:18-20)
you do, your words are but a clashing cymbal. So far you have failed to demonstrate
1. Why Matthew 28:19,20 is not incumbent upon all Christians.
2. How persons will attain to repentance if none are sent forth
3. Why if the public ministry is an expression of love and mercy, as well as justice are
you constantly trying to diminish its value.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindswhat has this got to do with anything? Sabbath is an entirely different issue to Christ
What does Jesus mean when He says the Son of Man is Lord of the
Sabbath? (Matthew 12:8; Luke 6:5)
directing the disciples to, go forth and preach the Kingdom of God.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was trying to find out what you understand in the Bible.
what has this got to do with anything? Sabbath is an entirely different issue to Christ
directing the disciples to, go forth and preach the Kingdom of God.
Perhaps you only understand the things you are taught by
the JW organization.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI answered 1. already, perhaps you are still not really reading my post
you have also consistently failed to answer any of the citations that are put to you, until
you do, your words are but a clashing cymbal. So far you have failed to demonstrate
1. Why Matthew 28:19,20 is not incumbent upon all Christians.
2. How persons will attain to repentance if none are sent forth
3. Why if the public ministry is an expression of love and mercy, as well as justice are
you constantly trying to diminish its value.
to you. 2. I did not say none should be sent forward. In fact, I explained how
most Christian churches accomplish this task. 3. I am not trying to
diminish the value of public ministry. All Christian churches have a public
ministry and I believe it is important. However, I do not believe all people
are called to a public ministry in the same way. Some may simply set
a good example of what it is to be Christian without saying a word about
what someone else should or should not believe. The Holy Spirit may pick
up from there.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you think the disciples ALWAYS baptised into the name of Jesus?
you have still failed to demonstrate that we are wrong to follow the clear direction of
the Christ, citing lots of scriptures in an attempt to diminish the role of the father wont
help you, its very plainly written for all to see. Royal wedding means absolutely
nothing to me, why it should be of importance, i do not know.
Who's got it wrong JW's or the disciples?
29 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterperhaps you can state just one instance where just one of the apostles underwent a
Why do you think the disciples ALWAYS baptised into the name of Jesus?
Who's got it wrong JW's or the disciples?
'Christian Baptism', whose got it wrong, you or the apostles? As for us we know what
we believe and why we believe it, if you want to state that you must only baptise in the
name of the Christ then that's up to you, as for us, we shall continue to follow the
direction of the Christ. So who has got it wrong, you or the apostles? Also what has
this got to do with a public ministry, very little as far as i can discern.
29 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAll Christian churches have a public ministry?? Then why do they never come to
I answered 1. already, perhaps you are still not really reading my post
to you. 2. I did not say none should be sent forward. In fact, I explained how
most Christian churches accomplish this task. 3. I am not trying to
diminish the value of public ministry. All Christian churches have a public
ministry and I believe it is important. However, I do no ...[text shortened]... about
what someone else should or should not believe. The Holy Spirit may pick
up from there.
anyone's house? I am always amazed when a person states i am active in my church,
active doing what? holding jumble sales and holding coffee mornings? clearly the Bible
states that each individual Christian had a public ministry which is a responsibility. All
you have continued to do is offer excuse upon excuse with platitudes and diversionary
arguments. I dont believe you have answered one of those questions.
29 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsthen start your own thread and dont get wide! As for Bible understanding, how anyone
I was trying to find out what you understand in the Bible.
Perhaps you only understand the things you are taught by
the JW organization.
can read it and not get the sense nor the importance of the Christian ministry really is
a reflection of how little you understand it, despite your pretensions.
29 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's not the issue is it, and there is no record of it.
perhaps you can state just one instance where just one of the apostles underwent a
'Christian Baptism',
After Jesus commanded his disciples who lived with him for 3 years to baptise in the singular NAME (not multiple names or titles) of the Father AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit; they immediately and exclusively all baptised in the Name of Jesus.
I'm just curious how you would explain this important precedent and why the JW's don't follow it?
29 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterno record of it, therefore who is wrong, you or the apostles. I say it is the issue, you
That's not the issue is it, and there is no record of it.
After Jesus commanded his disciples who lived with him for 3 years to baptise in the singular NAME (not multiple names or titles) of the Father AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit; they immediately and exclusively all baptised in the Name of Jesus.
I'm just curious how you would explain this important precedent and why the JW's don't follow it?
are stating that there is no record in the book of acts of persons being baptised in
the name of the father, therefore i shall use the very same premise, there is no
record of the apostles having undergone a Christian baptism, does that therefore
mean it never happened, who is wrong, you or the apostles?
I'm just curious how you would explain this important precedent and why the JW's
don't follow it? - divegeester
why is it so hard for you to understand this text, please tell the forum what it says, I
want to hear it from your own lips, who or what does this text state that we should
baptised into,
(Matthew 28:19-20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations,
baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy
spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And,
look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
Now i will ask you again so that you cannot evade it, who or what does this verse
state that a Christian should be baptised into.
Does it have anything to do with a public ministry or is it just another diversionary
argument so beloved by those professing to be Christians, you know, i cant tell you
why i dont engage in the ministry therefore ill make something up instead?