Early Deceivers?

[Aloysius]

Jesus did say "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

so yes, the apostles and the popes and the bishops may either bind us to full submersion, or loosen it to partial submersion, which pouring on the head would be. Jesus did not, in fact, specify that full submersion was necessary, He said you must be submersed; and then told His apostles that they could bind and loose the specifics of how to do the act on earth and He would bind and loose them in heaven, requiring His followers to do no more than what those to whom He gave the keys and the power to bind and loose bound them to do.

[quote]Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
It always amazes me what power a comma (which is not a punctuation mark in the greek text) has for the meaning of a scriptural verse.

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ." would mean the same as "In the name of Jesus Christ, be baptized!".

it does not indicate that the baptism is done "in the name of Jesus Christ", ie that those words are used. That's a common phrase used by the Apostles to exhort people to do things, that doesn't mean he had changed the formula given to him at the great commission, the phrase 'in the Name of Jesus Christ" referred not to the baptism, but to his exortation. ie "I exhort you in the name of Jesus Christ, be baptized"

apply that reasoning to these texts, it is perfectly valid:
[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22In+the+name+of+Jesus%22&x=0&y=0"]http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?q...amp;x=0&y=0[/url]

for most of those, it is quite clear that the Apostles are talking about exhorting, teaching, and preaching in the name of Jesus. So too did the Apostles exhort people, in the name of Jesus, to be baptized (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Jesus had told them to do)

That's a perfectly valid way of reading the text, perfectly feasable, and much more in line with the Great Commission which Peter himself would have heard Jesus say. Moreover, we know from the texts arrising out of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christianity that baptism was done "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"; and not "in the name of Jesus"; at least in the Universal Church, I do not know if any such practice arose among arians or gnostics or donatists or some other heretical group, but all the bishops who were taught by the Apostles themselves, and all the bishops those bishops taught, et cetera through these centuries, all describe baptism in the form given by the Great Commission; lending more credence to this reading of scripture, the reading whereby St. Peter exhorts them, in the name of Jesus Christ, to REPENT and to BE BAPTIZED. He was not instituting any formula for how they were to repent, by saying "I repent in the name of Jesus Christ"; nor was he instituting any formula for how they were to be baptized, by saying "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ"; no, He exhorted them in the name of Jesus Christ to do both of these things, but when he baptized them he did so in the exact words given to him by his Lord and Saviour on the occasion of His return into heaven: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"

Acts 8:16 seems to make it clear that baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" was incomplete, the Holy Spirit had not come upon them. Of course, it is describing these people's confirmation, wherein the Apostles (the Bishops) came and laid hands on them so that they might rerceive the Holy Spirit. But again, this verse means, consistent with all that we know from the history of the Church and from what we know of Our Lord's Command in the Great commission, that the people who had baptized them had done so in the name of Jesus Christ; and as such, they used the words Jesus Christ commanded them to use. In all likelihood they could have said "In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"; there is no indication of a formula CONTRARY to the formula given to the Apostles by JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF; and in the absence of such direct evidence, it is clear that we must assume they used the formula given to them by Jesus Christ. Then, of course, it goes on to describe how the Holy Spirit had not come to them yet; because those who came in the name of the Lord Jesus to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had only been those who came as Jesus came to the Apostles, and even after Jesus came to the Apostles they were still in need of Him sending the Holy Spirit.

I think those two answers suffice for any other verse, most of those verses didn't even pose that much of a possibility. I can foresee you're going to try to tell me I'm stretching the words; I assure you I am not, in a couple of these cases the scriptures could mean either thing, either what I said or what you said, both are equally as likely from the particular text. You think yours is more likely because that's what immediately comes to mind when you read these english translations with their commas all in place, i's dotted and t's crossed, chapters and verse-numbers set. I think mine is more likely because it fits in more with the command of Jesus Christ and the known history of the Early Church. But know this: there is nothing in the original greek texts which clarifies that the actual text means either what you say it does or what I say it does; therefore, I think my argument holds more weight, as I compare it to the rest of scripture, namely the gospels, and the history of the Church who was the first interpreter of scripture, who learned their faith from the writers of scripture themselves and from those who were present at the events.

[Aloysius]

This is how Acts 2:38 might of looked in the original text, I'll put in little english benchmarkers for you:

ΠΕΤΡΟΣ [Peter] ΔΕ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΗΣΑΤΕ [repent] ΦΗΣΙΝ [declared] ΚΑΙ ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΤΩ [be baptized] ΕΚΑΣΤΟΣ ΥΜΩΝ ΕΠΙ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ [name] ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ [Jesus Christ] ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙΩΝ ΥΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΤΗΝ ΔΩΡΕΑΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ

If someone who read in Greek read that sentence, they'd be likely enough to believe it said that "Peter declared in the name of Jesus Christ" that "everyone should be baptized". Word ordering in Greek is different than in English, and there is nothing in there indicating that the "in the name of Jesus Christ" was intended to modify "baptized"

Here's one given in your NIV as:

Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

in the greek, it is:

ΠΡΟΣΕΤΑΞΕΝ [he ordered] ΔΕ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ [him] ΕΝ [in] ΤΩ [the] ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ [name] ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ [Jesus Christ] ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΝΑΙ [be bapized] ΤΟΤΕ ΗΡΩΤΗΣΑΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΜΕΙΝΑΙ ΗΜΕΡΑΣ ΤΙΝΑΣ

Clear to me: /he ordered in the name of Jesus Christ/ that they be baptized. perfectly logical reading of the text, perfectly in line with the Great Comission and with the history of the Early Church.

Do you see how easy it is for a translator to mess with your faith? Kind of ruins the whole idea of breaking away from some oppressive Church hierarchy that was altering biblical truths, the translators themselves decide how the scriptures are going to read in places like this: and either way their translation isn't necessarily wrong. That's why doctrines need to be trusted to the Church. at least with the Church, there is the idea that they received a promise as the successors to the Apostles that their doctrines would be guided into all Truth by the Spirit of Truth.

there is no such promise nor claim of a promise for translators.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1271610' date='May 11 2007, 10:33 PM']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.[/quote]

I know it's useless to tell you that you are wrong, as are all the "immersion only" Christians. It's not true that baptism in the NT means immersion only. I was taught that as a Baptist, and I know now that it's a fallacy.

The oriignal Baptists in Amsterdam practiced baptism by infusion, as did the Mennonites from whom they were formed in 1607. They split and split again and in 1644, back in London where they started, a separate denomination of "Immersion Baptists" began the practice of immersion (submersion) only, which was adopted by some other Protestants.

It's my assessment, GC, that you are beyond learning, since you are convinced that you alone already possess the truth. But others may read this, and it is for them that I write. This article from Catholic Answers explains the practice of baptism in the NT.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp[/url]

What baptism has to do with the subject of this thread is beyond me, but since this is where you brought it up, this is where I'll answer it.

Likos