ECT The Gospel Proper

[Right Divider]

I'm not talking about VARIOUS baptisms. I'm taking about ONE particular baptism in the name of Jesus.
You have not "proved" to me what that passage means, just because you say it doesn't make it so.

You do not understand even the simplest FIGURES OF SPEECH.

"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.

Here is what proof looks like.
Jesus said make disciples by baptizing them in His name.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.

We see the apostles baptize with water in the name of Jesus.
47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.

It is not a magic formula as you and the rest of "Churchianity" make it out to be.

 

[Right Divider]

I totally agree!!!

Was there baptism "in the name of" Jesus before the thief died?

Yes, read the OT law on baptisms. Jesus is God.

 

[turbosixx]

Yes. And?

So if he died before Jesus made that command, how were his sins forgiven? Under the law of Moses?



No. Scripture states clearly that baptism IS NOT REQUIRED, not that one should not.[/quote]
Please share this passage with me, I have never seen it.

Was this said before or after what Paul said about baptism in 1 Corinthians 1?

1:17 is taken out of context. Do you really want to use one verse out of context to go against every conversion(that has any detail) that ends in detail? Do you really want to use one verse out of context to NOT do what Jesus commanded and Paul obeyed all the way through and till the end of his ministry?

Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Can't you see Paul obeyed Jesus?

 

[turbosixx]

You do not understand even the simplest FIGURES OF SPEECH.

"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.


"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.


"In the name of" simply means BY THE AUTHORITY OF.

It is not a magic formula as you and the rest of "Churchianity" make it out to be.

I agree 100% it means by the authority of!!!!! But it's done with water.

Are you telling me this isn't water baptism?
Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[turbosixx]

Yes, read the OT law on baptisms. Jesus is God.

Again you provide no proof. I'm sorry, in order for me to believe I need more than one verse taken out of context.

 

[Right Divider]

I agree 100% it means by the authority of!!!!! But it's done with water.

Are you telling me this isn't water baptism?
Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes were given instructions to water baptize per their priesthood to the nations, yes.

Jesus also instructed them to keep the law and to teach others to do the same. (Matt 28:20 with Matt 23:1-3).

You cherry-pick instructions given to THEM and ignore the rest.

 

[Right Divider]

Again you provide no proof. I'm sorry, in order for me to believe I need more than one verse taken out of context.

When you've read the OT law concerning water baptisms, get back to me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So if he died before Jesus made that command, how were his sins forgiven? Under the law of Moses?

Maybe you should read the passage. Jesus, who is God, forgave him at the very moment.

Please share this passage with me, I have never seen it.

It's called Paul's writings.

1:17 is taken out of context.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Turbo.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:14-17&version=NKJV

That's pretty clear to me.

Do you really want to use one verse out of context to go against every conversion(that has any detail) that ends in detail?

Loaded question.

I don't use verses out of context.

Do you really want to use one verse out of context to NOT do what Jesus commanded and Paul obeyed all the way through and till the end of his ministry?

Mk. 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This command was not given to Paul.

And you accuse me of taking things out of context...

Hypocrite.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:14-17&version=NKJV

And yet, not one drop of water is mentioned there.

Also, if I remember correctly, Acts 18:8 comes after Acts 1:5...

Can't you see Paul obeyed Jesus?

This is a red herring, nor is it in contention.

 

[turbosixx]

How can it not answer your question? God's program with Israel was till fully on track.Forgiveness of sins was accomplished the same way in Acts 2 as it was in Mathew 1 or at any time prior to that since Mt. Sinai.

Those before Christ were not saved the same way as those in Acts 2. God has provided something better for us as promised.
Heb. 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—

11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Baptisms (there were lots of them) are/were a ritual (i.e. symbolic) cleansing. There's no scripture reference needed. That's obvious.

Jesus commanded being baptized "in the name of". Surely there is scripture that tells us why, what it's for?

How is this relevant?

If baptism were required before Christ and Christ commanded a specific baptism "in His name", wouldn't it stand to reason it's required?

I suggest Naaman is very relevant because I hear people say getting wet does nothing. Would Naaman have been cleansed had he not gotten wet? Not just wet but wet AS instructed.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,


Does one verse taken out of context really nullify Jesus's command and Paul's examples of obeying that command? All baptisms up to "in the name of" are a shadow of that baptism.

 

[turbosixx]

The TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes were given instructions to water baptize per their priesthood to the nations, yes.

Jesus also instructed them to keep the law and to teach others to do the same. (Matt 28:20 with Matt 23:1-3).

You cherry-pick instructions given to THEM and ignore the rest.

So you agree baptized IN THE NAME OF Jesus is water baptism?

 

[turbosixx]

When you've read the OT law concerning water baptisms, get back to me.

So you got nothing? There is no baptism in the name of Jesus in the OT. That's the one Jesus commanded and Paul performed, that's the one I'm concerned with.

 

[Right Divider]

So you agree baptized IN THE NAME OF Jesus is water baptism?

Not based SOLELY on the use of that figure of speech, no.

 

[Right Divider]

So you got nothing? There is no baptism in the name of Jesus in the OT.

Of course there is. ALL REQUIRED WATER BAPTISMS were by the authority of God.

That's the one Jesus commanded and Paul performed, that's the one I'm concerned with.

Jesus sent Paul NOT to baptize. What about that command of Jesus?

(don't tell me let me guess, you'll cherry-pick some more verses to handle that).

 

[turbosixx]

Maybe you should read the passage. Jesus, who is God, forgave him at the very moment.

That's the way I understand it.

It's called Paul's writings.

I'm familiar with those.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Turbo.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:14-17&version=NKJV

That's pretty clear to me.

You just took it out of context. Is Paul's point of this PASSAGE, don't get baptized or baptism does nothing?

This command was not given to Paul.

Then why did he practice it?
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

And yet, not one drop of water is mentioned there.

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
What is Paul's point in this question?

 

[turbosixx]

Not based SOLELY on the use of that figure of speech, no.

That figure of speech is used taking about baptism. So in Acts 18 Paul baptized with water but in Acts 19 it's a totally different "in the name of " baptism than what Peter performed on Gentiles in Acts 10? Based on what?

 

[turbosixx]

Jesus sent Paul NOT to baptize. What about that command of Jesus?

That's what I'm wondering. You're saying Paul, at best added something and at worst disobeyed Jesus by baptizing believers even though he was not sent to do that. WHY would Paul baptize believers? Especially Gentiles?

 

[Right Divider]

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
What is Paul's point in this question?

Keep reading...

1Co 1:17 KJV For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.​

The body of Christ has NO religious ceremonies, NO holy days, etc. etc. etc.

 

[turbosixx]

Keep reading...

1Co 1:17 KJV For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.​

The body of Christ has NO religious ceremonies, NO holy days, etc. etc. etc.

I suggest you're seeing what you want to see. You keep repeating 1:17 taking it out of context. Is that really what you want your truth to stand on, one verse?

What was Paul's point in saying "were you baptized in the name of Paul"?

 

[Right Divider]

That figure of speech is used taking about baptism. So in Acts 18 Paul baptized with water but in Acts 19 it's a totally different "in the name of " baptism than what Peter performed on Gentiles in Acts 10? Based on what?

Act 19:3-8 KJV And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (7) And all the men were about twelve. (8) And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.​

Verses 4 & 5 were BOTH talking about John and those that hear HIM. The THEY in verse 5 are those that heard JOHN.

 

[Right Divider]

That's what I'm wondering. You're saying Paul, at best added something and at worst disobeyed Jesus by baptizing believers even though he was not sent to do that. WHY would Paul baptize believers? Especially Gentiles?

TIME.... things happened IN AN ORDER.

Paul was sent NOT to baptize LATER. Paul received REVELATION over MANY YEARS. The LORD continued to appear to Paul MANY TIMES.