Idolater
Popetard
It means when you baptize someone, speak the words "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".
Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Nowhere does scripture say to "speak" those specific words. That's man-made tradition talking.
In the Church (i.e., the body of Christ) there is ONE baptism and there is not a single drop of water involved.
This is that ONE baptism:
Catholic abuse of the English language here.
oatmeal
Well-known member
When people realize that God is Lord and therefore His son would be a lord as well, then the much of the confusion about both God and Jesus Christ being lord ceases
Again, so what?
"Name" in Matthew 28:19 is singular in both the Greek and in English. You cannot get around this fact.
There is ONE NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. His name is I AM.
The fact that there are three Persons who have that same name only proves my position, which is that God is triune, three in one.
If it were plural, there would be more than 3. You can't get around the triple possessive.
If you would be correct, the term YHWH doesn't mean I AM. It means he causes what has been.
But it is three names, and it is into/for the name and not in the name of the father, then of the son, then of the holy spirit. And it is this way in Greek. If it were one name, it would be written like 'into the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit. You have 3 of's, and not one. Thus you have 3 names and not 1 name and 1 of.
Right Divider
Body part
It's not plural, so your point it pointless.
All three of them are the one that causes what has been.
That's not what the BIBLE says.
The three ARE one.
You mean that is not what the english says because the greek says EIS.
But you don't know what the Greek says or how hEIS is used just like the Hebrew ECHAD.
Last edited:
And so is yours. There is nothing secret about how the word ονομος has a definition much more broad than the English word name.
Lon
Well-known member
1) is it appropriate to characterize a question so?
2) his post was addressing 'if' it were a Bible quote? Wouldn't all you would have needed, was to post the quoted 'scripture' verbatim?
3) Try not to be so easily offended? I'd think a Catholic 'could' have asked the same question, couldn't they? Is it not allowed, in Catholic circles, to ask for a scripture reference? Was it an exCathedra proclamation that cannot be challenged by scripture or something?
Idolater
Popetard
" . . . if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."1) is it appropriate to characterize a question so?
2) his post was addressing 'if' it were a Bible quote? Wouldn't all you would have needed, was to post the quoted 'scripture' verbatim?
3) Try not to be so easily offended? I'd think a Catholic 'could' have asked the same question, couldn't they? Is it not allowed, in Catholic circles, to ask for a scripture reference? Was it an exCathedra proclamation that cannot be challenged by scripture or something?
I’m instructed to regard you as an idolater.
Go to Mass.
Right Divider
Body part
When quoting scripture, please include book, chapter and verse so that we can look for ourselves.
Note that the "church" referred to in Matthew 18 is NOT the body of Christ (which did NOT yet exist).
Funny coming from a Romanist who's "church" teaches lots of idolatry.
No thanks. I stay away from idolatry.
Idolater
Popetard
In Romans 9:24 Paul says that the Church is composed of both Gentiles and those of the nation of Israel.
There is only one good olive tree. It has its natural branches, it has branches that are wild by nature but grafted into it, and it has the broken off natural branches that also are grafted into it Romans 11
Bald assertion.
You just stay away from Mass and the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ Matthew 18:20
Right Divider
Body part
No kidding.
Under God's plan for the earth, believing Israel leads the believing gentiles. Both are accepted by God.
In the body of Christ there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. Gal 3:28, Col 3:11
Yes, this is referring to a time BEFORE the body of Christ was established.
Pure fact.
The Romanist Mass has nothing to do with Christ. It is an abomination.
I'm IN Christ without the need for Romanist hocus pocus.
It's not plural.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
That's three.
One name, three Persons.
Your point?
Because you say so?
Once again: "Name" in both the greek and in the english is singular. There is ONE name. It belongs to THREE Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Because you say so?
As I said above, there are three Persons mentioned.
Yet only one "name" is referenced, which belongs to the three Persons.
You can't get around that.
Person? A Hypostasis is a distinction, not a person. The early church fathers thought the God to be one person.
Also, name also has a wide meaning including reputation. The name of 666 is mammon. It isn't added, but rather the name of Herod. And if KAI is consecutive, the passage for should read 'into' or "for the name/authority of the father, then of the son, then of the holy spirit". Hardly, the concrete proof you so desire, or self-delude with.
Also, name also has a wide meaning including reputation. The name of 666 is mammon. It isn't added, but rather the name of Herod. And if KAI is consecutive, the passage for should read 'into' or "for the name/authority of the father, then of the son, then of the holy spirit". Hardly, the concrete proof you so desire, or self-delude with.
The verse is speaking of God the Father. Keep it in the correct context and you will get the proper interpretation.