Question for nominal Christians

Originally posted by divegeester
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?

in the singular name? please we are still waiting for you to tell us how the reference at
Hosea related to Jesus Christ, or have you forgotten that as well? So my fathers
name is Alexander and my name , the son, is Robbie and that's a singular name, have
you any realisation how thoroughly illogical your pretensions are?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Gods Kingdom ring any bells Joseph? you know,

(Luke 9:2) . . .And so he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God . . .

Wrong! You'll have to do better than that.

I don't think you know what the Gospel is. It's your thread. Don't tell me to tell you what the Gospel is.

Exactly what is the Gospel?

I'll try to get back in a few days to see what you've said.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in the singular name? please we are still waiting for you to tell us how the reference at
Hosea related to Jesus Christ, or have you forgotten that as well? So my fathers
name is Alexander and my name , the son, is Robbie and that's a singular name, have
you any realisation how thoroughly illogical your pretensions are?

Yes singular. Stop pretending you don't understand, it's makes you look dishonest.

After Jesus commanded his disciples who lived with him for 3 years to baptise in the NAME (singular) 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?

Originally posted by josephw
Wrong! You'll have to do better than that.

I don't think you know what the Gospel is. It's your thread. Don't tell me to tell you what the Gospel is.

Exactly what is the Gospel?

I'll try to get back in a few days to see what you've said.

wrong????, sooo lets get this straight, you are contradicting the Christ, stand away from me, i dont want zapped as well!

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes singular. Stop pretending you don't understand, it's makes you look dishonest.

After Jesus commanded his disciples who lived with him for 3 years to baptise in the [b]NAME (singular) 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?[/b]

yes in the name of Jehovah, in the name of Jesus, no problems.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps a reminder,

(Matthew 28:19-20) . . .Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations,
[b]baptizing 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.

Christ's words i believe, dont you?[/b]

You know, this never occurred to me until just now, but why don't you tell us precisely WHOM He was talking to when he said this?

I will assume you do know He was speaking to His disciples.

What exactly makes you think this is a command to ALL Christians when He said this?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know, this never occurred to me until just now, but why don't you tell us precisely WHOM He was talking to when he said this?

I will assume you do know He was speaking to His disciples.

What exactly makes you think this is a command to ALL Christians when He said this?

What exactly makes you think this is a command to SOME Christians when He said this?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What exactly makes you think this is a command to SOME Christians when He said this?

I think it is what it is: a command to His disciples.

Are YOU qualified to baptize people?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I think it is what it is: a command to His disciples.

Are YOU qualified to baptize people?

nope, not that I am aware of, why? but then again i cant think of a reason why i might
be disqualified. what qualifications do you need?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, not that I am aware of, why? but then again i cant think of a reason why i might
be disqualified. what qualifications do you need?

So are you really telling me He commanded ALL Christians to go out and baptize people? Really? Can't you see what kind of chaos that would cause? Would YOU trust something as important as your baptism to a layman? What meaning would the baptism have if he didn't know what he was doing, or the meaning behind it?

There's a reason why only church officials baptize people today.

And that's exactly whom He was talking to. Church officials. Disciples.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then start your own thread and dont get wide! As for Bible understanding, how anyone
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.

How you could read my posts and come away with the idea that I do not
get the sense nor the importance of the Christian ministry really is a
reflection of how little you understand what I write as well as the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So are you really telling me He commanded ALL Christians to go out and baptize people? Really? Can't you see what kind of chaos that would cause? Would YOU trust something as important as your baptism to a layman? What meaning would the baptism have if he didn't know what he was doing, or the meaning behind it?

There's a reason why only church offici ...[text shortened]... e people today.

And that's exactly whom He was talking to. Church officials. Disciples.

sorry suzzianne your whole argument breaks down by the mere fact that there was no
clergy laity distinction in the first century, all were considered as worthy of the Good
News, indeed when Christ sent out seventy, what positions did those persons hold?
clearly they were not apostles, therefore what position did they hold? Paul states to
the Hebrews that all should be teachers, Christ himself states that its Gods will that
people take in knowledge, Christ himself states that the Harvest is great, do you
belong to a farming community, let me tell you no one sleeps in harvest time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How you could read my posts and come away with the idea that I do not
get the sense nor the importance of the Christian ministry really is a
reflection of how little you understand what I write as well as the Holy Bible.

yeah just important enough not to do anything about it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry suzzianne your whole argument breaks down by the mere fact that there was no
clergy laity distinction in the first century, all were considered as worthy of the Good
News, indeed when Christ sent out seventy, what positions did those persons hold?
clearly they were not apostles, therefore what position did they hold? Paul states to
th ...[text shortened]... is great, do you
belong to a farming community, let me tell you no one sleeps in harvest time.

This is contrary to some teachings that are explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church

This would indicate that Christ did establish the apostles as the church clergy. I imagine that the Bible verse under question was central to the development of the Nicene Creed. So those who say the Nicene Creed came later, have this as the reply. In fact, it can be said by believers in the 4 marks or attributes, that the heresy the Nicene Creed was developed to refute, lives today.

Most people think that Christian clergy is a calling by Christ, a vocation.

Originally posted by JS357
This is contrary to some teachings that are explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church

This would indicate that Christ did establish the apostles as the church clergy. I imagine that the Bible verse under question was central to the development of the Nicene Creed. So those who say the Nicene Creed came later, have this as the ...[text shortened]... ute, lives today.

Most people think that Christian clergy is a calling by Christ, a vocation.

not so, its contradicted by the mere fact that Paul himself was considered an apostle, an
apostle to the nations, yet he was not among the twelve.