Formula

Originally Posted by The Dean

BUMP:

Just wondering why nobody remotely addressed this? I thought it was a good analogy of what those do that insist on putting things in water baptism that aren't necessary.

To me it's like saying, "I baptize you in the name the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Rose of Sharon, Lilly of the Valley and Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Eenie, meanie, mynie, moe - catch a tiger by it's toe - Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers and yo ho ho and a bottle of - (well, okay, not that part) - And it shall come to pass in the last days - Go and sin no more - rise, take up thy bed - and in Jesus Name."

WHY add what isn't necessary. It's the Name that God required.

Why put three more unnecessary medicines in the shot when all it takes is the right ONE to cure me?

Give me the name. You can keep the rest.

Well, for what it's worth ... I agree with you 100%, Jesus Christ is the Name required. The invocation of the singular NAME in Matt. 28:19 is JESUS CHRIST.

In our church anthem, one of the verses says ....

... "our wisdom and perfection, our righteousness and pow'r yea all we need in Jesus will we find this very hour!"

Dare we get into the issue that Jesus is a transliteration from another word which was a transliteration from another word? If we are going to be this specific, does that mean that someone who speaks another language has to be baptised in the name as it was "transliterated" from the original Hebrew into their own language?

(waves at "RL")

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Caston Smith

Well, for what it's worth ... I agree with you 100%, Jesus Christ is the Name required. The invocation of the singular NAME in Matt. 28:19 is JESUS CHRIST.

In our church anthem, one of the verses says ....

... "our wisdom and perfection, our righteousness and pow'r yea all we need in Jesus will we find this very hour!"

Isn't "Jesus" His Name?
and the word "Christ" (Anointed One or Messiah) an office or a title like the word "Lord"?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Isn't "Jesus" His Name?
and the word "Christ" (Anointed One or Messiah) an office or a title like the word "Lord"?

Yes, but there were many named "Jesus" in those days (actually the Aramaic original as Sheltiedad pointed out). So, we have to identify which "Jesus" so that heaven knows who we're talking about. And then we have to hope that our English barbarisms aren't too garbled for heaven to understand what we mean.

Of course it all really is a matter of faith in the end, because we don't really even attempt to do it the way the Apostles must have done their baptisms. Horse tank or fiberglass sauna, liturgical recitations or a simple shout; most of what we do is a reaction against some other denomination and not a real search for the Apostolic pattern.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by The Dean

BUMP:

Just wondering why nobody remotely addressed this? I thought it was a good analogy of what those do that insist on putting things in water baptism that aren't necessary.

To me it's like saying, "I baptize you in the name the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Rose of Sharon, Lilly of the Valley and Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Eenie, meanie, mynie, moe - catch a tiger by it's toe - Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers and yo ho ho and a bottle of - (well, okay, not that part) - And it shall come to pass in the last days - Go and sin no more - rise, take up thy bed - and in Jesus Name."

WHY add what isn't necessary. It's the Name that God required.

Why put three more unnecessary medicines in the shot when all it takes is the right ONE to cure me?

Give me the name. You can keep the rest.

Excellent point, however the 1st Century church seems to have emphasized what the convert was saying and believing not so much what the liturgical officiant was pronouncing over the baptismal font (Acts 2:21 and Acts 22:16).