Baptized into the Name

[Kemosloby]

I'm not totally clear on where you're coming from, to be honest. The Son's name is Jesus. It seems that you are concerned that we say "in the name of the Son", but do not specify the name of Jesus. You also seem concerned that it is done not in the name of the Son only, but also in the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Am I right?

As far as your comment that there is no Christian "priesthood" spoken of in the Bible, that's another subject. I do believe in the priesthood and could discuss it more.

Yes, you say baptized in the name of the Son but do not say his name, leaving the door open to another name, such as Lucifer Son of the morning. I'm fine with also making the name Father and Holy Spirit known. In the bible they baptized people into the name Jesus, then they also said haven't you heard about the Holy Spirit and layed hands on and the Holy Spirit came to them. And the Father is separate from the Son, so they also told people about the Father.

But as you have it it sort of conforms with antichrist teachings, that Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God. So you say you're priests were commisioned by Jesus (minimized to maybe a prophet or something) to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Which I believe the some say the Trinity is One God.

The Muslims could do so well, In the name of Muhammed I baptize you in the name of Allah. Because the Catholics also teach that the Trinity is One God ..which is confusing if Jesus is not the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost.

So how do you justify the Christian priesthood? And don't say Revelations where it says we are all priests and kings with Christ because that means everyone in Christ is a priest, and equal to one another in that sense.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It is the Trinitarian formula that is used in the Catholic Church and, I think all denominations except for the Mormon Church. The other stipulation besides the Trinitarian formula, water must be used. If one were to convert to the Catholic Church after having been baptized their baptism is valid, one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.

That's true. My baptism in the Christian Church was accepted in the Catholic Church. I know they do not accept Mormon baptism as valid.

 

[Desert Snake]

I was just being picky.

I don't use 'Yahweh', actually.
I use 'JHVH', & 'YHWH'. /writing it out, I use 'Jehovah'

 

[Desert Snake]

That's true. My baptism in the Christian Church was accepted in the Catholic Church. I know they do not accept Mormon baptism as valid.

Baptism into that church, cannot be necessary for salvation; Scripture proves that.

 

[Desert Snake]

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?

It is actually Jesus, who is baptizing, if you read the Scripture. Hence,
The church baptism, 'in the name of', is not actually the baptism that, basically either may or may not even happen, at that time. / Baptism by Jesus

 

[Reggie Miller]

Baptism into that church, cannot be necessary for salvation; Scripture proves that.

What are you saying?

 

[Desert Snake]

What are you saying?

That baptism into the catholic /or any other church, does not mean salvation. The ceremony is a request, basically, as opposed to a absolute assurance that Jesus is going to baptize the person, at the time of the church baptism.

 

[metis]

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'

The second verse does not directly relate to baptism.

In regards to the first verse, we need to remember that after Pentecost and the visitation of the HS, the Twelve decided that all must be baptized or rebaptized in the name of the HS as well.

 

[metis]

If one were to convert to the Catholic Church after having been baptized their baptism is valid, one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.

In an emergency, even spit could be used. IOW, any watery substance.

 

[Desert Snake]

The second verse does not directly relate to baptism.

It is clearly indicating that there is more to a 'church baptism', than many think. If not, no need for the Great Apostle Paul to even do any of that. Verses like this are in opposition to some traditional church/s/ dogma

 

[Reggie Miller]

That baptism into the catholic /or any other church, does not mean salvation. The ceremony is a request, basically, as opposed to a absolute assurance that Jesus is going to baptize the person, at the time of the church baptism.

Who is saying it does? But what does the scripture say:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

 

[metis]

It is clearly indicating that there is more to a 'church baptism', than many think. If not, no need for the Great Apostle Paul to even do any of that. Verses like this are in opposition to some traditional church/s/ dogma

Water baptism was always considered essential, which is why Mark's gospel has it that one must "believe and be baptized" in order to be saved.

BTW, as a non-Christian, I don't believe in that theology.

 

[metis]

You can baptize yourself, if you want to.

No, as baptism is an introductory initiation into Christianity as a whole. IOW, it's simply has never been viewed as a do-your-own-thingy.

 

[Desert Snake]

Water baptism was always considered essential, which is why Mark's gospel has it that one must "believe and be baptized" in order to be saved.

BTW, as a non-Christian, I don't believe in that theology.

I'm not baptized, hence clearly i don't subscribe to that idea. I think that there are other verses that indicate, you don't actually need to be baptized, but whatever.

 

[pearl]

That's true. My baptism in the Christian Church was accepted in the Catholic Church. I know they do not accept Mormon baptism as valid.

As was mine. But we did not go from a Christian church to a Catholic church. For me I went from a Methodist Christian church to a Catholic Christian church.

 

[Fool]

According to the prologue of John's Gospel, Jesus was
pre-existent.

no, the Word(Logos) was pre-existent, the personality, Jesus, wasn't. also, those lines are borrowed from the hindu texts. God said, "Let there be........."


all things were begotten of it, or there was no thing formed(in heaven & earth) that wasn't formed from it, or begotten of it.

the beast once was, now is not, yet will come. the begotten must become unbegotten in order to return to the Unbegotten Begetter. or the formed must become formless in order to return to the Unformed Former

Rev 17:11
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, as baptism is an introductory initiation into Christianity as a whole. IOW, it's simply has never been viewed as a do-your-own-thingy.

That was originally a ceremony to indicate that the person had changed their religion, /hence a public ceremony.
I'm not aware of any rule stating that you can't baptize yourself.
If there is a rule, it would only stem from the 'legitimate church', direct from Johanan, imo. Thusly, it would mean that most baptisms don't follow that tradition, imo. hence the claim of a specific ceremony is just church dogma

 

[metis]

I'm not baptized, hence clearly i don't subscribe to that idea.

Your choice, I guess, but your position is not compatible with scripture nor church tradition.

I think that there are other verses that indicate, you don't actually need to be baptized, but whatever.

If you could find them, I would appreciate you posting them.

 

[metis]

If there is a rule, it would only stem from the 'legitimate church', direct from Johanan, imo.

The "legitimate church" was the church of the Twelve as stipulated in Acts and the various epistles. It never was attributed to just one apostle.

 

[metis]

Hmm some people seem to disagree, but if you want to read Scripture in that manner, I suppose you could

Such as whom?

Sort of surprised there haven't been verses to that affect already posted

I don't know what you mean by this. Which verses are you referring to?