UPCI - Page 9

dizzyde · #81 02-10-2010, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MusicMaster

What you are is a forum troll. People figure out who you are on one name, so you move to another and another and another. Eventually the owners on the forum will get tired of your game, and ban you for a year or something like they did that Daniel guy. You're more annoying than he ever was.

Small point of fact, that "Daniel guy" is back, and I am fairly certain he was never banned for a year.

Also, I'm not at all certain that you really know who TM is, some of your facts seem a little off...

scotty · #82 02-10-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I personally think the name of Jesus should be spoken at baptism BUT even though you've given several references to baptism, there is NO place in our NT where the person is actually quoted at baptism like they are quoted at healing and exorcism.

For the sake of study and discussion, what do you believe was said over baptism. I understand your approach as far as "this was not specifically said." What, in your opinion, do you believe the diciples did say in these references ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I will as soon as you show me one place where it says that the words "in the name of Jesus" were audibly said over baptism...

Nice cop out.

But seriously, I would pose the same question to you as I did Sam. The references I have quoted from scripture do tip the scales in favor of Jesus name baptizm. What scripture references do you have to offer that would give wieght to baptizm in the titles ?

On a side note, how are we reading the following scriptures as NOT being Jesus name baptizm ?

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

jfrog · #83 02-10-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty

For the sake of study and discussion, what do you believe was said over baptism. I understand your approach as far as "this was not specifically said." What, in your opinion, do you believe the diciples did say in these references ?

Nice cop out.

But seriously, I would pose the same question to you as I did Sam. The references I have quoted from scripture do tip the scales in favor of Jesus name baptizm. What scripture references do you have to offer that would give wieght to baptizm in the titles ?

On a side note, how are we reading the following scriptures as NOT being Jesus name baptizm ?

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus

I believe it is best to be silent where the bible is silent. The apostles words over baptism are not recorded. Clearly this implies that what is said over baptism is not very important...

If you want to take acts 2:38 and acts 19:5 as both being the actual words spoken then I suggest you take acts 10:48 as being the actual words also. But if this is the case then in Acts 10:48 they said "in the name of the Lord" which is contrary to your insistence that the word Jesus must be said over baptism. Therefore I say that in either case, whether we take the accounts as the actual words of the apostles or whether we don't, that in both cases your position that the word Jesus must be issued at baptism is not found in the bible.

EDIT: I wanted to add a bit about what I view those verses to be saying. I am reading those scriptures as having nothing to do with the words that are spoken. Baptism wasn't set up to be some kind of divine formula. Baptism is about the remission of sins and symbolizes our death, burial and resurrection with Jesus. I say that all these titles and names all refer to the same authority, for Jesus himself said that he came in his Father's name, therefore implying that his authority came from the Father. So since the authority of Jesus is the same as the authority of the Father what difference does it make whether we baptize in the authority of Jesus or in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In fact, I will even go so far to say that even if not one word is uttered at the baptism of a believer about whose authority or name it is being done in, then that baptism was still done both in the authority of both Jesus Christ and in the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

scotty · #84 02-10-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I believe it is best to be silent where the bible is silent. The apostles words over baptism are not recorded. Clearly this implies that what is said over baptism is not very important...

If you want to take acts 2:38 and acts 19:5 as both being the actual words spoken then I suggest you take acts 10:48 as being the actual words also. But if this is the case then in Acts 10:48 they said "in the name of the Lord" which is contrary to your insistence that the word Jesus must be said over baptism. Therefore I say that in either case, whether we take the accounts as the actual words of the apostles or whether we don't, that in both cases your position that the word Jesus must be issued at baptism is not found in the bible.

So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?

Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.

I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.

EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.

TroubleMaker · #85 02-10-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

I will as soon as you show me one place where it says that the words "in the name of Jesus" were audibly said over baptism...

Yes, that was point #21 in my list that I deeply enjoyed writing.

jfrog · #86 02-10-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty

So then what is the name of the Lord ?
What is the name of the Father ?
What is the name of the Holy Ghost ?
What is the name of the Son ?

Why would it be recorded in scripture if it were not important what was spoken over baptism ? To come to your conclusion you are having to ignore scripture just for the sake of ignoring the whole point of the conversation. If you have no answers then simply say so.

I see Jesus commanding them to baptize in the "name" of the Father, the "name" of Son and the "name" of the Holy Spririt. The diciples response to this command was Acts 2:38 as well as others I have posted. In light of the obvious I just cant seem to understand not only why Jesus name baptism seems so confusing to some but why bother with the argument against it.

EDIT: you answered some of my post before I got it posted with your EDIT. Thanks.

I added another paragraph that you can take a look at.

But it seems you already missed my point.

Acts 10:48 says they baptized in the name of the Lord. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Acts 2:38 and Acts 19:5 are both saying they baptized using the words "in the name of Jesus" then Acts 10:48 is saying they baptized using the words "in the name of the Lord". If they actually said a title when the baptized in Acts 10:48 instead of the name then I have proven that a title can be used in place of a name. Therefore what is the difference of Peter baptizing people in the title of Lord and someone today baptizing people in the titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Why can Peter baptize people with a title but no one today can?

TroubleMaker · #87 02-10-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Small point of fact, that "Daniel guy" is back, and I am fairly certain he was never banned for a year.

Also, I'm not at all certain that you really know who TM is, some of your facts seem a little off...

Yeah, but it was quite an honor to be told I'm even more irritating than "that Daniel guy." I'll take that insult anytime. Dan's a forum and theological genius, in my extremely humble opinion, so that insult make me pretty happy!

And yeah, I kinda wondered the same things. His certainty of who I am didn't make sense in a couple of places, so I'm pretty sure that he didn't figure out that I'm actually Kenneth Haney.

Oops!!!!!!! Admin, can you delete that last part!!! I don't want people to know!!!!

TroubleMaker · #88 02-10-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Way to avoid the question.

An easier way to answer would've been to admit you don't have one, instead of making a ridiculous list.

...and way to avoid responding to my list of 477 points, or however many it was. By, my brilliant friend, I was using a debative technique that your hero, Rush Limbaugh, claims to use, which is, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. I thought I did have a point, and the list was the point.

But I'll make a deal with you: As soon as you can show a verse in the bible where someone said, "In the name of Jesus" or some form of that when a person was baptized, I'll respond to his point. Deal?

n david · #89 02-10-2010, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

...and way to avoid responding to my list of 477 points, or however many it was. By, my brilliant friend, I was using a debative technique that your hero, Rush Limbaugh, claims to use, which is, using absurdity to illustrate absurdity. I thought I did have a point, and the list was the point.

Rush Limbaugh isn't my hero. And Scotty did post scripture, now, you just chose to ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

But I'll make a deal with you: As soon as you can show a verse in the bible where someone said, "In the name of Jesus" or some form of that when a person was baptized, I'll respond to his point. Deal?

Acts 2:38 is pretty plain and simple. "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ..."

jfrog · #90 02-10-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Rush Limbaugh isn't my hero. And Scotty did post scripture, now, you just chose to ignore it.

Acts 2:38 is pretty plain and simple. "...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ..."

Acts 10:48 is even simpler. He baptized them in the name of a title. It amazes me that he would do such a thing when saying the word Jesus over the baptized is soooo important.