What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?

Truther

Well-known member
What's revolting is robbing Christ of His glory and giving it to the water and a rigid, baptism formula. What is so hard about believing in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation instead of baptism? (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9 etc..).

That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for you to ACCEPT.
Does Peter and Paul revolt you for commanding baptism in the name of Jesus?

Only Acts skippers are revolted by the Acts of the Apostles.

The Acts skipper union was actually started by the RCC and have a long line of fellow Acts 2:38 protestant followers from Mormonism to modern mainline churches that purposely omit the name of Jesus Christ during baptism. They are all considered daughters of the RCC by the book of Rev. They obey the RCC to the letter regarding Matt 28:19.

Only an exclusive club, beginning with the 3000 at Pentecost will surrender themselves to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

The rest are RCC affiliates.
 

Truther

Well-known member
When you call on the name of Jesus in baptism you are identifying yourself with him in his burial.
Exactly.

No name, no ID.

Acts 2:38 skippers probably do not wear dog tags or any form of ID during war, but just figure if they are found dead, everyone knows who they are.
 

MMDAN

Active member
Does Peter and Paul revolt you for commanding baptism in the name of Jesus?

Only Acts skippers are revolted by the Acts of the Apostles.

The Acts skipper union was actually started by the RCC and have a long line of fellow Acts 2:38 protestant followers from Mormonism to modern mainline churches that purposely omit the name of Jesus Christ during baptism. They are all considered daughters of the RCC by the book of Rev. They obey the RCC to the letter regarding Matt 28:19.

Only an exclusive club, beginning with the 3000 at Pentecost will surrender themselves to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

The rest are RCC affiliates.
Both Catholicism and Mormonism (along with Campbellism) teach that water baptism obtains remission of sins/must be water baptized in order to be saved. You are in agreement here with two false religions that pervert the gospel and teach salvation by works. Then you have the audacity to reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 just like your Oneness Pentecostal friends who also reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (because they reject the Trinity) and they also teach that in order to be saved, one must be water baptized, along with teaching that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit and since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit, it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved according to them. YOU ARE NOT IN GOOD COMPANY!

So for the umpteenth time, the phrase, "in the name of Jesus," is not a reference to a rigid, salvic, baptismal formula but is a reference to authority. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus clearly stated, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. So to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is to baptize in Jesus' name/by His authority. If you continue to insist on rejecting the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and promoting your rigid, baptismal formula and perverted water gospel, then I can't help you any further. All I can do is continue to pray that you will come to repent and believe the gospel. I hope and pray that the Lord will one day open your eyes to the truth.
 

Truther

Well-known member
Both Catholicism and Mormonism (along with Campbellism) teach that water baptism obtains remission of sins/must be water baptized in order to be saved. You are in agreement here with two false religions that pervert the gospel and teach salvation by works. Then you have the audacity to reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 just like your Oneness Pentecostal friends who also reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (because they reject the Trinity) and they also teach that in order to be saved, one must be water baptized, along with teaching that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit and since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit, it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved according to them. YOU ARE NOT IN GOOD COMPANY!

So for the umpteenth time, the phrase, "in the name of Jesus," is not a reference to a rigid, salvic, baptismal formula but is a reference to authority. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus clearly stated, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. So to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is to baptize in Jesus' name/by His authority. If you continue to insist on rejecting the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and promoting your rigid, baptismal formula and perverted water gospel, then I can't help you any further. All I can do is continue to pray that you will come to repent and believe the gospel. I hope and pray that the Lord will one day open your eyes to the truth.
You don't get it, Dan....

They all baptize wrong.

They say the name of the son is son.

You are not seeing that all of you are under the direction of the RCC.

They invented your "name of the son is son" doctrine.

You prop her up by saying.... to say "son" is to say "Jesus".

I would consider you to be consistent if everything you did only said "son" in word or deed, but hypocritical when you only omit "Jesus" as a spoken name at baptism.

Now, if I was the devil, I would not try to stop the use of Jesus' name, except for baptism for the remission of sins(allow folks to think they are saved but are not).

He is clever, duping mankind via the RCC to disobey the Acts 2:38 message and keep the rest.
 

Andreas

Active member
Both Catholicism and Mormonism (along with Campbellism) teach that water baptism obtains remission of sins/must be water baptized in order to be saved. You are in agreement here with two false religions that pervert the gospel and teach salvation by works. Then you have the audacity to reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 just like your Oneness Pentecostal friends who also reject the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (because they reject the Trinity) and they also teach that in order to be saved, one must be water baptized, along with teaching that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit and since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit, it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved according to them. YOU ARE NOT IN GOOD COMPANY!

So for the umpteenth time, the phrase, "in the name of Jesus," is not a reference to a rigid, salvic, baptismal formula but is a reference to authority. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus clearly stated, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. So to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is to baptize in Jesus' name/by His authority. If you continue to insist on rejecting the very words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 and promoting your rigid, baptismal formula and perverted water gospel, then I can't help you any further. All I can do is continue to pray that you will come to repent and believe the gospel. I hope and pray that the Lord will one day open your eyes to the truth.

And you hold to a rigid view of repeating the words of Jesus rather than actually baptizing in the singular NAME he was speaking of. In context Jesus mentions "all POWER is given unto ME" and that refers to authority. Then he tells them "teaching them... all things whatsoever I have commanded you", and "I am with you always". Matthew 28:18-20 is nothing but JESUS, JESUS, JESUS.

Then go to the parallel great commission in Luke 24:47 "and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in HIS NAME, among all nations".

So, Peter on the day of Pentecost did what Jesus commanded and baptized in the NAME of Jesus. You see they didn't repeat Jesus' words they obeyed his words. You just come from a tradition that lost the truth of baptism as given by the apostles. Why not just follow what the apostle said?

That should be enough to convince anyone to be baptized in the name of Jesus.

Furthermore, your "authority" argument is pretty weak anyways. 1. What is to prevent someone from just saying Acts 2:38 is the way to baptize and Jesus in Matthew 28 was just referring to "authority"? Your switch-a-aroo of authority is totally arbitrary.

2. So, if you say that Matthew 28:19 is speaking of the authority of JESUS and that is what the Apostles meant in Acts, then are you saying that baptism was not done by the Apostles under the authority of the two other persons of the Trinity? Why didn't the apostles mention the two other persons of the Trinity in the book of Acts baptisms?


3. What better way to invoke the authority of JESUS than by plainly speaking his name? The Apostles were persecuted and told not to preach in JESUS name anymore. Well how did the authorities know that they preached JESUS if they didn't mention his name? Speaking the actual name and authority are closely related.

4. There are many billions of fathers and many sons in the world. How does the title of father and son invoke authority? Can you sign a check or a mortgage using your title such as "son"?
 
Last edited:

all4Him

Active member
Please tell me what the name of the son is that Jesus was referring to in this verse....


19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Thanks.
If Jesus wanted to say that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the name Jesus, He would have said it clearly. Instead, He used the phrase, "in the name of" which does not imply a certain name, but authority. Using your logic that all three have the same name "Jesus," and in some way Jesus was making the claim He is the Father, then who gave the Father all authority in heaven and on earth?
 

Rivers

Member
Please tell me what the name of the son is that Jesus was referring to in this verse....


19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Thanks.

This passage is not referring to anyone's personal name.
 

Andreas

Active member
If Jesus wanted to say that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the name Jesus, He would have said it clearly. Instead, He used the phrase, "in the name of" which does not imply a certain name, but authority. Using your logic that all three have the same name "Jesus," and in some way Jesus was making the claim He is the Father, then who gave the Father all authority in heaven and on earth?
If Matthew 28:19 was all you had about the doctrine of baptisms then that's what all sincere Bible believing people would repeat. But baptism is a popular topic in the NT. Baptizing in the name of Jesus was and is done because this is the pattern of the Apostles throughout the book of Acts. It is also implied in 1 Corinthians, and the entire meaning of baptism is to identify with and be buried with Christ according to Romans 6. Even the Catholic church and Bible commentaries often say that the earliest baptisms were done simply in the name of Jesus.

Also according to Luke 24:47 Jesus did mention baptism in his name. Do you think Matthew 28:19 is the only time Jesus spoke about baptism? If the Apostles who walked with Jesus understood the name to be Jesus, who are we to know better than they what Jesus meant? God gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and I don't think he messed it up on the first gospel sermon to the world.
 

all4Him

Active member
If Matthew 28:19 was all you had about the doctrine of baptisms then that's what all sincere Bible believing people would repeat. But baptism is a popular topic in the NT. Baptizing in the name of Jesus was and is done because this is the pattern of the Apostles throughout the book of Acts. It is also implied in 1 Corinthians, and the entire meaning of baptism is to identify with and be buried with Christ according to Romans 6. Even the Catholic church and Bible commentaries often say that the earliest baptisms were done simply in the name of Jesus.

Also according to Luke 24:47 Jesus did mention baptism in his name. Do you think Matthew 28:19 is the only time Jesus spoke about baptism? If the Apostles who walked with Jesus understood the name to be Jesus, who are we to know better than they what Jesus meant? God gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and I don't think he messed it up on the first gospel sermon to the world.
Wrong again Andreas. Jesus didn't mention baptism in Luke 24:47. In fact, He said repentance for the forgiveness of sins, not baptism.

Luk 24:47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Question for you. What are the similarities between Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19?
 

Truther

Well-known member
If Jesus wanted to say that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the name Jesus, He would have said it clearly. Instead, He used the phrase, "in the name of" which does not imply a certain name, but authority. Using your logic that all three have the same name "Jesus," and in some way Jesus was making the claim He is the Father, then who gave the Father all authority in heaven and on earth?
The Father is INSIDE the son, causing the son to have all authority by default.

Also, Peter knew all the 3 titles as 1 name per saying "in the name of Jesus" at Acts 2:38.

It is only hard for Catholics and their daughters to see.
 

Truther

Well-known member
Wrong again Andreas. Jesus didn't mention baptism in Luke 24:47. In fact, He said repentance for the forgiveness of sins, not baptism.

Luk 24:47
47 And that repentance for the remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Question for you. What are the similarities between Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19?
Trivia for today.

The very first time remission of sins is mentioned per Acts(Jerusalem), what was said exactly?...

A...38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

B...26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

C...13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Pick one.

Now, look at the KJV and compare the verse to your biased translation verse...

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.



Also....Your corrupt translation says "repentance FOR THE ...of sins".

Busted!
 

Andreas

Active member
Wrong again Andreas. Jesus didn't mention baptism in Luke 24:47. In fact, He said repentance for the forgiveness of sins, not baptism.

Luk 24:47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Question for you. What are the similarities between Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19?
They actually spoke the name of Jesus out loud.
 

all4Him

Active member
They actually spoke the name of Jesus out loud.
No one knows the actual words spoken over a person during baptism, at least not until the middle of the 1st century. I wonder what it could possibly imply by pouring the water over the head 3 times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit? :unsure:

Didache the teaching of the Apostles.

CHAP. VII.--CONCERNING BAPTISM. A.D. 65-80.

And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
 

Andreas

Active member
No one knows the actual words spoken over a person during baptism, at least not until the middle of the 1st century. I wonder what it could possibly imply by pouring the water over the head 3 times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit? :unsure:

Didache the teaching of the Apostles.

CHAP. VII.--CONCERNING BAPTISM. A.D. 65-80.

And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.


The dating of the Didache that you give is early. Also, the document had revisions too. God only knows if and what it looked like at first. The internal evidence of how it prescribes baptism is unlike anything seen in the book of Acts. It's requirements for cold running water are way beyond anything we see in the Bible. The added rules and regulations are something that we would expect from later Christian communities.

1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Here is a reference list of historical references for baptism in the name of Jesus like the apostle performed:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/water-baptism-study-britannica-encyclopedia-11th-edition-mercier

But beyond the historical documents, the most important thing is how the Apostles performed the great commission.

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? " 1 CORITHIANS 1:13

The implications of what Paul said here are enormously helpful to what we are talking about here even though his topic was teaching against the sin of sectarianism. They obviously were not baptized in the name of Paul. Paul is using a ground of truth his audience would be readily familiar with in order to rebuke and instruct them about something they were getting wrong. To baptize in the name of Paul would have meant them saying Paul's name in the baptism formula. No, but why? Because Paul was not crucified for them. Paul was pointing them to Jesus by reminding them how and why they were baptized the way they were. Who was crucified for them? Not Paul, but Jesus. Baptize in the name of the one who was crucified for you. That is the name you are to plainly baptize in.
 
Last edited:

all4Him

Active member
The dating of the Didache that you give is early. Also, the document had revisions too. God only knows if and what it looked like at first. The internal evidence of how it prescribes baptism is unlike anything seen in the book of Acts. It's requirements for cold running water are way beyond anything we see in the Bible. The added rules and regulations are something that we would expect from later Christian communities.

1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Here is a reference list of historical references for baptism in the name of Jesus like the apostle performed:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/water-baptism-study-britannica-encyclopedia-11th-edition-mercier

But beyond the historical documents, the most important thing is how the Apostles performed the great commission.

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? " 1 CORITHIANS 1:13

The implications of what Paul said here are enormously helpful to what we are talking about here even though his topic was teaching against the sin of sectarianism. They obviously were not baptized in the name of Paul. Paul is using a ground of truth his audience would be readily familiar with in order to rebuke and instruct them about something they were getting wrong. To baptize in the name of Paul would have meant them saying Paul's name in the baptism formula. No, but why? Because Paul was not crucified for them. Paul was pointing them to Jesus by reminding them how and why they were baptized the way they were. Who was crucified for them? Not Paul, but Jesus. Baptize in the name of the one who was crucified for you. That is the name you are to plainly baptize in.
I used a 1st century manual for how to be baptized and you use the Britannica encyclopedia? But of course, the best information Oneness can come up with. Nothing like getting your source from non-Christians and Roman Catholics.

There is no recorded formula in the NT used during baptism by any of the Apostles.

Once again, we see the phrase, "in the name of" used here by Paul, not as implied by you, but applied in the same way it is used in all scriptures. Nothing changes from scripture to scripture. The phrase has the same meaning every time it is used, and it does not mean using the specific name.

RWP: The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page).

Also, Paul wrote in 1Co 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . "
If baptism was part of salvation Paul would have never said this.
 

Truther

Well-known member
In conferring the rite of Baptist, Joseph Smith writes in the Doctrines and Covenants as follows:
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
 

Andreas

Active member
I used a 1st century manual for how to be baptized and you use the Britannica encyclopedia? But of course, the best information Oneness can come up with. Nothing like getting your source from non-Christians and Roman Catholics.

Dating all the Didache to the 1st century is convenient for you but doesn't agree with most historians. That it has been revised is commonly understood. I gave you more than just Britannica among the historical references. The best Oneness "can come up with" is the Bible and that is what ultimately is the final judge of doctrine.

There is no recorded formula in the NT used during baptism by any of the Apostles.

Then nothing in Acts can be plainly understood. Using your logic in Acts 3 Peter didn't really tell the lame man to rise and walk in the name of Jesus but perhaps he said in the name of Rumpelstiltskin.


Once again, we see the phrase, "in the name of" used here by Paul, not as implied by you, but applied in the same way it is used in all scriptures. Nothing changes from scripture to scripture. The phrase has the same meaning every time it is used, and it does not mean using the specific name.

Without saying the name no one has any idea of the authority. Legally authority is given by an actual name and authority. The church in Philadelphia was commended by Jesus "and have not denied my name". You clinical separation of authority from speaking the name is bordering on demonic and I do not say that with any pleasure whatsoever.


RWP: The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page).

This is not true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are titles. Your whole argument of "authority" in the baptisms in Acts is absurd and simply a distraction from a weak argument. For example, in Matthew 28:19 "eis to onoma tou Patros" is the same Greek used in Acts 19:5 "eis tou onoma tou Kyriou Iesou".

One could arbitrarily say that Matthew 28:19 was only about authority and not about the form of words saying the titles and Acts 19:5 was the form of words used. But the whole "authority" argument is weak...


Oneness people are not saying that "in the name of" does not mean authority. It does mean authority and that is why the name of Jesus is actually spoken! The name has authority. Without a name there is no authority. This is true in the Bible and in legal earthly authority as well. This is Bible... "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow...

Also, Paul wrote in 1Co 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. . . "
If baptism was part of salvation Paul would have never said this.

You are taking Paul out of context. Paul baptized many people in Acts... even in the middle of the night! It is not uncommon for a minister who wins many souls to have his assistants do the baptizing.

You're even undermining the text of Matthew 28. Baptism is part of the great commission given by Jesus. Where does it say in the Bible that commands of Jesus are optional?
 

Truther

Well-known member
You clinical separation of authority from speaking the name is bordering on demonic and I do not say that with any pleasure whatsoever.
This is exactly what I think.

I have fought devils in dreams that stop me from saying "Jesus".

It is weird.

The majority of Christendom has also been stopped from saying "Jesus" per baptism for the remission of their sins.

The devil has a powerful grip on them.
 
Top