Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitehawk013
I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.
You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.
Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.
|
I would be interested in your evidence...
If the "nevertheless" is your evidence it is not evidence at all but fanciful speculation.
Threaded Mode
