Baptized into the Name

[Kemosloby]

When the modern day priests and preachers baptize they say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" but don't name any names. That seems a little fishy compared to Apostles baptizing into the name Jesus. Which seems to be the main point of being baptized, knowing the name of the Lord. What gives? Satanic conspiracy?

Acts 10:49 "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."

Acts 8:16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Attitude of Christ
Phillippians 2:9-…Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…

 

[Neo Deist]

You're overreaching.

In traditional Christianity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost reference the Trinity, and everyone knows what that represents.

If I say in a conversation that the president lives in the White House, but do not use his last name, does the president suddenly become someone else and it's all part of a conspiracy?

 

[Kemosloby]

You're overreaching.

In traditional Christianity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost reference the Trinity, and everyone knows what that represents.

If I say in a conversation that the president lives in the White House, but do not use his last name, does the president suddenly become someone else and it's all part of a conspiracy?

Coming from a deist in favor of it, I'll take that as a yes, it's an anti-christ conspiracy.

 

[Neo Deist]

deism doesn't use this texts, who cares what you theorize about ''baptism''

Coming from a deist in favor of it, I'll take that as a yes, it's an anti-christ conspiracy.

Alas, the only option one has when they have been called out and hit with logic: attack.

I have long stated that I am in fact a Christian Deist on RF. Multiple posts have covered that, including the Deism DIR where I defined what it meant, complete with my bio about growing up as a Baptist.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Desert Snake]

Alas, the only option one has when they have been called out and hit with logic: attack.

I have long stated that I am in fact a Christian Deist on RF. Multiple posts have covered that, including the Deism DIR where I defined what it meant, complete with my bio about growing up as a Baptist.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Deism and christianity aren't compatible when arguing Scriptural debates. They have to be argued within context.
Btw John's baptism isn't necessary for salvation, anyway.
The commands to baptize are contextual, and the method /trinitarian reference, is actually vague, and probably not the best method, per thread premise

 

[Kemosloby]

Alas, the only option one has when they have been called out and hit with logic: attack.

I have long stated that I am in fact a Christian Deist on RF. Multiple posts have covered that, including the Deism DIR where I defined what it meant, complete with my bio about growing up as a Baptist.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You made your own religion? You can't serve two masters...

 

[Neo Deist]

Deism and christianity aren't compatible whan arguing Scriptural debates. They have to be argued within context.

If that is the case, are you prepared to argue using ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, along with having the cultural, geographic and time period mindset?

 

[Neo Deist]

You made your own religion? You can't serve two masters...

Deism is not a religion, it is a philosophy.

 

[Desert Snake]

If that is the case, are you prepared to argue using ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, along with having the cultural, geographic and time period mindset?

Arbitrary nonsense.
To some relevance, I do check the Greek if the need arises, never has changed an argument

 

[Kemosloby]

Deism is not a religion, it is a philosophy.

What is the name of the Son of God?

 

[Desert Snake]

''baptize'', is actually not specific in meaning, in the context to every verse. The command to baptize the nations, is more likely a command to 'teach', ie this usage is not referring to the redemptive John's baptism, referred to in other verses. We can infer this logically, as the water baptism is actually not in itself, going to ensure salvation, or for that matter, have much meaning without the other teachings of the religion. Hence, the better inferences to baptism would be a literal stating of 'Jesus', really. \
It is Jesus who actually is being referred to via the ''in the name of'', since Jesus baptizes, in another manner, and that is the important ''baptism'', for a Christian.
This is also backed by the fact that the Great Apostle Paul, for example, baptized people after they had been baptized /John's baptism. Paul baptized them with his hands, for example, inferring that he felt they needed a further baptism, as well.

 

[Reggie Miller]

When the modern day priests and preachers baptize they say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" but don't name any names. That seems a little fishy compared to Apostles baptizing into the name Jesus. Which seems to be the main point of being baptized, knowing the name of the Lord. What gives? Satanic conspiracy?

Acts 10:49 "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."

Acts 8:16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Attitude of Christ
Phillippians 2:9-…Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…

There is no problem with this as long as the person being baptized and all of the witnesses well understand that the Father is God and the Son is Jesus Christ.

I have never heard of a person in a Christian church who didn't understand what the Father, Son and Holy Ghost refers to.

This is reaching, I think, in an attempt to find fault with the Church. Want to try again?

 

[metis]

The OP is rather bizarre since I do believe most people, obviously including Catholics, well know who is being referred to by the use of the word "Son".

 

[Desert Snake]

The OP is rather bizarre since I do believe most people, obviously including Catholics, well know who is being referred to by the use of the word "Son".

Then they should know that
John 8:58
is a reference to JHVH.

And they should know that baptism alone does not infer salvation.
and they should know that the Great Apostle Paul baptized with his hands.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Names are households. Baptism is described as both adoption and as death, and you die and are born (or adopted) into a new life as part of a new name or household. Paul calls it the household of faith. It is not immediate obvious because the Bible is not a textbook.

 

[metis]

is a reference to JHVH.

There's no "J" sound in Hebrew.

And they should know that baptism alone does not infer salvation.

Rituals normally aren't viewed as doing as such. The source of the concept of baptism is likely a variation of the mikvah, which normally did and does involve immersion. However, ...

and they should know that the Great Apostle Paul baptized with his hands.

Reference please?

BTW, I don't think the depth of the water makes much difference one way or the other.

 

[Desert Snake]

There's no "J" sound in Hebrew.

That's a linguistic inference, the languages the 'j' letter was used, don't use that sound for that letter. It's the same thing as writing 'YHWH'.

 

[metis]

That's a linguistic inference, the languages the 'j' letter was used, don't use that sound for that letter. It's the same thing as writing 'YHWH'.

I was just being picky.

 

[Desert Snake]

Reference please?

Acts of the Apostles 1:5

John's redemptive baptism is noted, /this is what would be relating to Mikveh, presumably

Acts of the Apostles 19:6

the different baptism is noted, and the specific 'type' of baptism referred to in Acts 1 :5, is noted as different, 'water baptism'

 

[Spideymon77]

Coming from a deist in favor of it, I'll take that as a yes, it's an anti-christ conspiracy.

The Father is God, the Son is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is... I don't know what that is and I don't care what it is.

If this were a Satanic Conspiracy, are you saying people who got baptized under "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" are going to Hell? What would be the main goal to this conspiracy, to confuse everyone?