No Jesus Name Invoked, No Valid Baptism? - Page 6

TyronePalmer · #51 03-31-2018, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Your not a child, I believe I'm speaking to an adult. Jesus is the judge? Then I suggest you listen to the judge and get baptized in His name. This isn't an argument, this is simple. What if the baptizer didn't say the name? You see, you aren't even serious about this, so why are you here? Are you looking to convert some of us to what you believe?

I'm on here to have an intelligent dialogue with other believers, I just asked a few questions, why not answer them?

I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, people are gonna believe what they want to believe, just like you, unable to even consider that GOD may view my baptism and countless others as valid in His sight.

I'm certainly not in shock and awe at the hard hearts of the religious, it was the same two thousand years ago!

Evang.Benincasa · #52 03-31-2018, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyronePalmer

I'm on here to have an intelligent dialogue with other believers, I just asked a few questions, why not answer them?

I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, people are gonna believe what they want to believe, just like you, unable to even consider that GOD may view my baptism and countless others as valid in His sight.

I'm certainly not in shock and awe at the hard hearts of the religious, it was the same two thousand years ago!

Yep, two thousand years ago there were a group who took Torah, with their oral law, mystical traditions to create a religion to circumvent what God had instructed. God views your baptism as not valid, you as you stated above have already have circumvented that, with your own justification. Therefore the well never have need of a physician. If Jesus preached and David played his harp you will still continue in your way.

Originalist · #53 03-31-2018, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let me ask you a question, have you ever cast out a devil, or prayed over anyone saying the name of Jesus and witnessed a healing?

Does that actually make sense to you? Because logically it makes no sense to me.

The only reason why the Amplified writes it out that way is one) because it is amplifying the verse, and two) because that IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GREEK!!!

No. Baptism is not mentioned in the Greek in that verse in James.

Show me any Greek text which doesn't say that name which was called upon you. I'll wait while you look. Also, have you happened to come across that verse you spoke of that said God calls the name upon us? I'll wait for that also.

I was referring to baptism being mentioned in the verse you cited in James. I do not deny it says "called over you". I simply do not see the link to baptism.

Evang.Benincasa · #54 03-31-2018, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

No. Baptism is not mentioned in the Greek in that verse in James.

The Amplified version and others aren't delusional, they simply understand that James is making reference to baptism. The name is called upon us. Which he refers to baptism. They were audibly blaspheming the name of Jesus Christ, which was called UPON the ones who were baptized. That is how the Greek is worded. Read it for yourself in Greek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

I was referring to baptism being mentioned in the verse you cited in James. I do not deny it says "called over you". I simply do not see the link to baptism.

Again, James speaks of the prophet Joel's comments concerning the remnant of Israel and all the Gentiles in which the name was called upon. Then he repeats himself in James 2:7. James logically was referring to the water immersion and the invocation from the baptizer.

Esaias · #55 03-31-2018, 08:17 PM

"The Waterway":

Esaias · #56 03-31-2018, 08:21 PM

One One One Way:

Esaias · #57 03-31-2018, 08:24 PM

Gino Jennings - 1/2 Baptism name of Jesus Christ …:

Esaias · #58 03-31-2018, 08:25 PM

Gino Jennings - 2/2 Baptism name of Jesus Christ …:

Originalist · #59 03-31-2018, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Now, you are caught in pyschological projection. Because you are you state that Jesus never gave such command to either formula.

No, I said he never instructed on ANY formula.

Therefore you are hard to logically follow. Teachers are supposed to make things clear, the tongues of angels. Which means to take spiritual truths and make them plain, tongues of men. If you can't do one you can't do the other. You end up confusing the student.

I have been very clear. Try being a better listener.

The Bible therefore becomes a book of a cryptic mystery religion. Where we all would have to have YOU as our pastor. Let , me go further, to understand clearly what I am saying is that a child shouldn't be able to be in error and that as a teacher you would make things plain. If you cannot prove to us your case simply, then we must look for another. If you have something which can only be explained by YOU, then you instead of the scriptures are our guide. You run from stem to stern, and one minute you actually state that it doesn't matter to what is said over us, and then you say you do believe that something is said over us.

Please stop pretending like this is some sort of contradiction. I think your game is to pull a Sean an keep pretending I didn't answer your points. You know very well that I've always stated that the baptizer most likely mentioned Jesus in any invocation (though a prayer is more likely what was uttered). My contention has always been, it is not the utterance of the baptizer that remits sins. Are we clear now? Is that good enough of a teaching style for you? Can you read plain English? Stop making this disingenuous claim that I'm al over the map on this one.

Bro, it must also be a consistent teaching in order for it to be bulletproof. If you are going to replace something with something supposedly to be truth, then it has to be better than what we already know. It must also be able to withstand scrutiny no matter how stupid YOU may think we are.

My teaching is consistent. I don't have to read into the narrative some hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo that neither the Apostles or Christ taught. I don't have to take out of context some Priestly blessing in the Old Testament that was uttered over the Hebrews and use it as a proof-text for incantational heresy.

Ok, do you see what you are doing here? You aren't saying anything. What you are doing is not teaching, not even refuting.

When there is nothing taught about it in scripture, I don't have to waste my time refuting it. There is nothing remotely taught in scripture concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin.

You are in short just saying I'm wrong, without clarifying explanation. How is it apples and oranges? How does it compare to New Testament baptism? How does it not? Bro, you aren't helping me to understand you in the least.

Oh please. Why insult me?

Jesus' words to John is that John NEEDED to baptize Jesus to complete all righteousness.

And HOW does that prove YOR theory concerning baptismal invocations remitting sin? You have repeated this same thing over and over . I'm still at a loss on how this proves your theory. As I've stated, no pre-Pentecost baptism can be compared with ours, not even that of Jesus.

Period. Those are Jesus' statements on the matter, because Jesus would be the firstborn of many brethren and therefore He set out and took His men to also baptize. Did I say anything about imparting righteous? Does the scripture verse mention an impartation of righteousness? No, the only thing mentioned is a fulfillment of righteousness. Righteousness is completed with the baptizer baptizing the Christ.

Bro, that isn't what we see in the scripture, because in Mark 9:38 the disciples forbid a man from casting out devils who was using the name of Jesus. The man wasn't in Jesus' authority, because obviously Jesus didn't know the man.

And you red on to verse 41 and STILL think the word "name" is not referring to authority? We say "in the name of Jesus" when we give that cup of water? That's how we do that act "in his name"? Sorry, but verse 38 is indeed talking about authority. The man was casting out devils "in his name" NOT "WITH his name".

In the judgement Jesus solidifies this fact by telling the man and others that He NEVER knew them Matthew 7:22-23. Just like the devils didn't KNOW the sons of Sceva who are Biblically documented as using the name of Jesus accompanied by the name of the Apostle Paul Acts 19:13.

Maybe they made the same mistake doctrinally you are concerning the name.

Now yes or no, in Acts 19:13 do the audibly say the words "we adjure you in THE NAME OF JESUS, whom Paul preaches?" Yes, or NO?

As I stated previously, a demon is an intelligent, thinking being. Certainly an intelligent being must be made to understand vocally by whose authority he is being ordered out. That is why the name Jesus was mentioned. I have explained this at least 20 times to you. Thus, do you see that I am not denying the name was said? Do you see that? Yes or no? We seem to differ, however, on the significance of its use.

In the Sceva case, that word was a vain repetition, meaningless. There was no Holy Ghost authority behind it. This proves to me it is the authority and not he word Jesus that is the issue.

Honestly, if I am still not being clear to you, let me know.

Esaias · #60 03-31-2018, 08:32 PM

Why Water Baptism In Jesus' Name by Dr. Talmadge …: