Early Deceivers?

[Socrates]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270114' date='May 10 2007, 01:15 PM']Here's an unbiased historical point
How kind the emporers who wanted to make people obey only what they wanted. I'm glad the The Trinitarian didn't agree with this.
Hmmm. . . that means there must have been people who were baptized in Jesus name at the time. Oh, that can also be found in Acts 2:38 too. I'm honoured to be baptized in the holy name of Jesus Christ!
I'm not defending budge, but I am defending truth.

There were early decievers, as there are later day decievers.

They will use the word to prove just about everything they want. The decievers may have protected the Bible, out of fear of what God would do to them if they touched his word, but they can twist the meanings of things, and make people believe just about anything.

Historicly, Baptism in Jesus Name came before Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So go just a little more deeper than what you have been told![/quote]
The words of Jesus Christ Himself to His Apostles: [quote]Going therefore, teach ye all nations: [b]baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost[/b].[/quote]Matthew 28:19.

Trinitarian Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself. Don't believe those articles written by those who don't believe the historical truth of the Gospels.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1270660' date='May 10 2007, 08:12 PM']The words of Jesus Christ Himself to His Apostles: Matthew 28:19.

Trinitarian Baptism was instituted by Christ Himself. Don't believe those articles written by those who don't believe the historical truth of the Gospels.[/quote]
Peter obeyed Jesus on the day of Pentecost, and that is all I am going to say.

The Bible says Jesus name Baptism in four places in scripture. You're not going to discredit that truth very easily.

People wanted historical proof of early deception, and when I provide it, you discount it. How predictable!

I am truly blessed to be baptized in the name of the son of God. I am truly glad the son's name is the name of the Father who is in heaven, because the son's name is YHWH our saving cry, and that through the son I have access to the father - through his name. For there is no other name in heaven and earth in which a man MUST BE SAVED!

You can deny all you want, but it got changed!

History proves it.

The only reason why most protestant denominations are going back to rome, is that very simple fact. I am glad I know the truth that it is in the name of the Son that I should be baptized, because I can know that Rome is full of it, and is an abomination that I will gladly see passed judgement on along with its queen.

[Socrates]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270668' date='May 10 2007, 08:21 PM']Peter obeyed Jesus on the day of Pentecost, and that is all I am going to say.

The Bible says Jesus name Baptism in four places in scripture. You're not going to discredit that truth very easily.

People wanted historical proof of early deception, and when I provide it, you discount it. How predictable!

I am truly blessed to be baptized in the name of the son of God. I am truly glad the son's name is the name of the Father who is in heaven, because the son's name is YHWH our saving cry, and that through the son I have access to the father - through his name. For there is no other name in heaven and earth in which a man MUST BE SAVED!

You can deny all you want, but it got changed!

History proves it.

The only reason why most protestant denominations are going back to rome, is that very simple fact. I am glad I know the truth that it is in the name of the Son that I should be baptized, because I can know that Rome is full of it, and is an abomination that I will gladly see passed judgement on along with its queen.[/quote]
Way to ignore Matthew 28:19, which I just quoted you.
Going therefore, [b]teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.[/b]

So was Jesus Christ "deceiving" there, or was St. Matthew?

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1270669' date='May 10 2007, 08:26 PM']Way to ignore Matthew 28:19, which I just quoted you.
Going therefore, [b]teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.[/b]

So was Jesus Christ "deceiving" there, or was St. Matthew?[/quote]
Neither.

Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.

I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"

Edited May 11, 2007 by GodChaser

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1270689' date='May 10 2007, 09:59 PM']Neither.

Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.

I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"[/quote]

If you don't have to be baptized in Jesus' name and Trinitarian baptism is wrong, as you say, then how is one supposed to be baptized? It doesn't matter? One can pick and choose... whatever suits them?

[mortify]

[quote]Here's a question, is it wrong to baptize in Jesus Name. It was a common practice from the times of the Apostles up until the 4th century.[/quote]Don't pursue this type of argument if you're not prepared to be consistent.

[quote]I'm not saying you have to be baptized in Jesus name, but if someone, like myself, was baptized in Jesus name, and I won't be re-baptized by any faith if I choose to become a part of that faith, am I going to go to hell for believing a teaching that is "Not from the catholic religion"[/quote]

In "The Teaching of the Apostles" (Didache) which served as guide book for the early Church we read the following under the section of Baptism:

"The procedure for baptizing is as follows. After repeating all that has been said, immerse in running water [b]'In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'[/b]."


Does this contradict the bible?

Take a look at Acts 19, how did St Paul respond to those who said they never heard of the Holy Ghost? [b]"Into what then were you baptized?"[/b], he asked. They received "John's Baptism," but had they received "The Baptism in the name of Christ" they would have known the Holy Ghost because He is part of the formula, both verbally and spiritually. Thus the phrase "Baptism in the name of Jesus" is used to distinguish it from the baptism of St John.

Edited May 11, 2007 by mortify

[Aloysius]

Godchasser, are we to assume you consider the Arians to have been the early believers? Though it is theologically terrible and heretical, your opinion is much less open to historical attack because indeed there are records of Arians and people who denied the Christological and Trinitarian Truths set down by the Apostles.

Budge's position is that there were obscure christians who were never written into history anywhere who did not even participate in the debate about arianism, who were trinitarians (as she is) and who were not arians.

So Godchaser/Fulltruth, I will say you have a much more historically defensible position. I would disagree with it, and argue history with you to show that the Arians were not of the same faith as the Apostles; but we could both unite and say to Budge "whilst we both have predecessors in this time period who believed as we do now, you do not. why is that?"

[Groo the Wanderer]

hmm...just checking in to see if Budge had found any long lost early non-catholic christians yet...


still ducking the question i see...pity. i had popcorn ready and everything

Edited May 11, 2007 by Groo the Wanderer

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1270942' date='May 11 2007, 02:34 AM']hmm...just checking in to see if Budge had found any long lost early non-catholic christians yet...
still ducking the question i see...pity. i had popcorn ready and everything [/quote]

Groo, Homeschoolmom put Budge on a 'vacation' for a little while for breaking the guidelines. She isn't gonna be back until her vacation is over.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[jeffpugh]

Where did she go for her vacation? (Yes I get it... I hope she will be back in a better mood... maybe she'll bring back some souvenirs... ie have read a few history books).

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1270854' date='May 10 2007, 11:59 PM']Godchasser, are we to assume you consider the Arians to have been the early believers? Though it is theologically terrible and heretical, your opinion is much less open to historical attack because indeed there are records of Arians and people who denied the Christological and Trinitarian Truths set down by the Apostles.

Budge's position is that there were obscure christians who were never written into history anywhere who did not even participate in the debate about arianism, who were trinitarians (as she is) and who were not arians.

So Godchaser/Fulltruth, I will say you have a much more historically defensible position. I would disagree with it, and argue history with you to show that the Arians were not of the same faith as the Apostles; but we could both unite and say to Budge "whilst we both have predecessors in this time period who believed as we do now, you do not. why is that?"[/quote]
Thank you for the compliment.

I think you can baptize in Jesus name and be a Trinitarian too. But that's JMHO. Remember, I'm not Arian - they're dynamic modalists, and I'm not Oneness- monarch modalist, I'm just a economic Trinitarian - the three are one - with no words added, because that is scriptural. So if they are one, if you baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, it still makes it valid, because Jesus, being one of the three, is one!

Plus it identifies you with the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ. I love the fact I was baptized in Jesus name as a beliver, and I think everybody who wants to, should experience that blessed baptism.

I see no difference, because if you are being baptized because you have repented of your sins, and you want to be obedient to God and God's word. It's the faith in Jesus Christ's death, and the obedience to God's word that saves you, the baptism matters not - except it is obedience to Christ to be born again of the water and of the spirit.

I don't think being baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost matters either. Both are in scripture, and God is not looking for exactness in ritual, but he looks at the heart of the person who is being baptized.

Though we can disagree with the way baptism should be done, because I would baptize in full immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, and you can baptize in full immersion in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost.

It's the people who changed it that will one day who will pay. Those who were giving their lives to God through that baptized will not be judged for that error, but the ones who created it will.

[jeffpugh]

You almost talk like Baptism was radically changed. All that has happened is that water is poured upon the head in Our Church. It is only certain prods who "sprinkle". Anywho, I have no need to address the whole baptism in the name of the trinity issue. It has been addressed. Check it out again. You're not really debating, but lecturing a bit.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1271607' date='May 11 2007, 09:29 PM']You almost talk like Baptism was radically changed. All that has happened is that water is poured upon the head in Our Church. It is only certain prods who "sprinkle". Anywho, I have no need to address the whole baptism in the name of the trinity issue. It has been addressed. Check it out again. You're not really debating, but lecturing a bit.[/quote]
Lecturing, preaching, same difference.

I will stand on the truth when I can. If it is for Catholics, or Budgianitists (I hope I spelt that one correct), I just want to stand on a truth.

I'm the kind of person that doesn't like going from the right or left from God's laws, and if Baptism was immersion in the greek, than that means immersion, not pouring, not sprinkling, immersion.

[Aloysius]

Neither lecturing nor preaching is what this phorum is about. This phorum is about discussion and debate, if you are not here to do that then, with all due respect, you ought to leave. We are not here to be preached to, we are here to discuss and debate. If you're not going to consider our arguments but rather simply preach as if we ought to be your students, then you would have the wrong attitude. This doesn't seem to be the case for the most part, but I just want to make that clear. Debate and discuss, but mere lecturing/preaching is just going to be pointless for all involved.

Anyway, like I said: you identify with people who actually have historical roots in Christendom, which places you historically better than Budge. But theologically, you are much worse off than Budge to the point of flirting with the border of what is "Christian" and what is not. Budge, howeverr, has no historical roots nor any basis for her absolutely wild assertion that there were people who believed as he does now in this time period.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1271738' date='May 12 2007, 02:21 AM']Neither lecturing nor preaching is what this phorum is about. This phorum is about discussion and debate, if you are not here to do that then, with all due respect, you ought to leave. We are not here to be preached to, we are here to discuss and debate. If you're not going to consider our arguments but rather simply preach as if we ought to be your students, then you would have the wrong attitude. This doesn't seem to be the case for the most part, but I just want to make that clear. Debate and discuss, but mere lecturing/preaching is just going to be pointless for all involved.

Anyway, like I said: you identify with people who actually have historical roots in Christendom, which places you historically better than Budge. But theologically, you are much worse off than Budge to the point of flirting with the border of what is "Christian" and what is not. Budge, howeverr, has no historical roots nor any basis for her absolutely wild assertion that there were people who believed as he does now in this time period.[/quote]
Okay, you give the great commision scripture in Matthew 28:19,

Go ye into all the world, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.


Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, [b]baptizing (From Strong's concordance - 907)[/b] them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

baptizo (907)

baptizw baptizo

Pronunciation: bap-tid'-zo
Origin: from a derivative of 911
Reference: TDNT - 1:529,92
PrtSpch: verb
In Greek: baptisyhnai 10, baptizwn 7, ebaptizonto 5, ebaptisyh 4, ebaptisen 4, ebaptisyhte 4, ebaptisa 4, baptisei 3, baptisyhsesye 3, baptizw 3, ebaptisyhmen 3, baptisyeiv 3, ebaptisyhsan 2, baptisyentev 2, baptizein 2, baptizei 2, ebaptizen 2, baptizontai 1, baptisyhtw 1, bebaptismenoi 1, baptisyentov 1, baptizontov 1, baptizeiv 1, baptizontev 1, baptisai 1, ebaptisanto 1, baptizomenoi 1
In NET: baptized 46, baptizing 12, baptize 10, baptizer 3, undergo 1, baptizes 1
In AV: baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1
Count: 80
Definition:

[b]1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean
with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e.
fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution,
especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian
baptism:-Baptist, baptize, wash.
see GREEK for 911[/b]

Submerge, Immerse, dipping submerging, to make clean, to overwhelm, to make fully wet?

Christ said we needed to be submerged and immersed in the water, and if that is what he said and what he meant, what right does a Pope have to change it to pouring? I guess Jesus gives Popes the ability to say, Jesus - I am your follower and I say we shouldn't have to do that.

Okay Pope, you're right. Jesus says.

Thanks Jesus, the Pope says.

Hmmm, who has the power, Jesus or the Pope?

Again, when it comes to the intrepration of scripture, the Pope is sorely wrong! Opps, that must be the Protestant in me saying that!

[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Baptized+Jesus+Name&x=0&y=0"]Scriptural proof that Baptism in Jesus Name happened[/url]

And before you give me that pitiful, in the authority of Jesus Christ arguement, you have to utter the name of the authority to do that. So if they were baptizing in the authority of Jesus Christ, they would be pronouncing Jesus Christ's name during the Baptism!

Edited May 13, 2007 by GodChaser