Many souls released from Purgatory on Christmas, pray AND on a commercial flight, Mother Teresa spea

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275

What is the point to your sentence TJ? Christ instituted the Sacraments, you receive God's grace in the Sacraments. It has to be as Christ instructed. And your second, one sentence from Tyndale who was Protestant, he's objecting to the faith.

Read all of the Catholic Encyclopedia, don't quote one sentence. You post dates (2nd century) concerning the faith and still follow a present day heretic (Reckart). Makes no sense. For a Sacrament to be valid, there must be matter and form. Baptizing with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Spirit).

+ + +

That Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism is unquestionable. Rationalists, like Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 68), dispute it, only by arbitrarily ruling out the texts which prove it. Christ not only commands His Disciples (Matthew 28:19) to baptize and gives them the form to be used, but He also declares explicitly the absolute necessity of baptism (John 3): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God." Moreover, from the general doctrine of the Church on the sacraments, we know that the efficacy attached to them is derivable ONlY from the institution of the Redeemer.

The requisite and sole valid form of baptism is: "I baptize thee (or This person is baptized) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This was the form given by Christ to His Disciples in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far, at least, as there is question of the invocation of the separate Persons of the Trinity and the expression of the nature of the action performed.

www.newadvent.org...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by colbe
I checked, maybe it has already been shared, sorry if it has...

I wondered about Reckart's writings.

Here's one ~

Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"

and discussion to follow:

forums.catholic.com...

Check above, the response to Reckart's faked source to try and deny the truth of the Trinity.

It is reply #3. I never noticed about Matthew 28:19, see the underlined.

+ + +

Default Re: Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"?

Baptism

In addition to the necessary word "baptize", or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Note also that this is the format proscribed in the Didache (the Teachings of the Apostles) which reputable scholars date to the First or Second Century.

Reckart, on the other hand, who is not a scholar of ancient documents, dates it to 1000AD (Source).Text Apparently, his theory is that Eusebius, Athanasius and Rufinus all had time machines, in that they cited the work in the Fourth Century, 600 years before Reckart claims it was written.

What say you True Jew? You quoted reference to 2nd century history found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The teachings of Our Lord given the of the Apostles found in the Didache are 1st Century. How come you insist on staying with Reckart and Pentecostal Oneness?

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by colbe

 

What is the point to your sentence TJ? Christ instituted the Sacraments, you receive God's grace in the Sacraments. It has to be as Christ instructed.

Which is why it is questionable that Christ said Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The apostles baptized in the name of Christ. Did the apostles go against Christ, as your Matthew 28:19 claims, or did they do as Christ said and baptize in His name, as Luke recorded.

Originally posted by colbe

Read all of the Catholic Encyclopedia, don't quote one sentence.

I am not going to quote the entire encyclopedia for you.

reply to post by colbe


The Didache is 2nd century at the earliest. It was not written by the apostles and therefore not to be trusted for doctrine.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by colbe

 

What is the point to your sentence TJ? Christ instituted the Sacraments, you receive God's grace in the Sacraments. It has to be as Christ instructed.

Which is why it is questionable that Christ said Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The apostles baptized in the name of Christ. Did the apostles go against Christ, as your Matthew 28:19 claims, or did they do as Christ said and baptize in His name, as Luke recorded.

Originally posted by colbe

Read all of the Catholic Encyclopedia, don't quote one sentence.

I am not going to quote the entire encyclopedia for you.

The only one denying, "questioning" baptism in the name of the Trinity are a few heretics and now you. Who God is, is pretty important, the Apostles would share this to be believed true teaching of Christ.

You crack me up if it wasn't so serious a subject. You and your one sentence replies.
I didn't say post all of the Catholic Encyclopedia. You can't even find a paragraph anywhere from the Apostles or their students to support the "oneness" nonsense (heresy).

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

The Didache is 2nd century at the earliest. It was not written by the apostles and therefore not to be trusted for doctrine.

The Didache is first century, from the Apostles, teachings given to them by Christ. The underlined, why do you follow the lying weirdo, Reckart? Is it so you can be different TJ, break from the basic beliefs of the faith? Wondering..

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by colbe

 

The only one denying, "questioning" baptism in the name of the Trinity are a few heretics and now you. Who God is, is pretty important, the Apostles would share this to be believed true teaching of Christ.

The apostles baptized into Christ, not a trinity.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

The Didache is 2nd century at the earliest. It was not written by the apostles and therefore not to be trusted for doctrine.

The Didache is first century, from the Apostles, teachings given to them by Christ. The underlined, why do you follow the lying weirdo, Reckart? Is it so you can be different TJ, break from the basic beliefs of the faith? Wondering..

Most scholars today date The Didache to be late first century or early second century. Since the first mention of baptism into any name other than Jesus was Justin Martyr, who lived 100-165AD, I would say 2nd century at the earliest.

Since the apostles baptized into Christ (See the book of Acts), it is obviously not written by the apostles.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

The Didache is 2nd century at the earliest. It was not written by the apostles and therefore not to be trusted for doctrine.

The Didache is first century, from the Apostles, teachings given to them by Christ. The underlined, why do you follow the lying weirdo, Reckart? Is it so you can be different TJ, break from the basic beliefs of the faith? Wondering..

Most scholars today date The Didache to be late first century or early second century. Since the first mention of baptism into any name other than Jesus was Justin Martyr, who lived 100-165AD, I would say 2nd century at the earliest.
Since the apostles baptized into Christ (See the book of Acts), it is obviously not written by the apostles.

edit on 14-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

True Jew denies the Didache now.

You deny everything, the earliest writings, Christ Himself telling the Apostles to baptize in the name
God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. All to fit your one misinterpreted verse in Luke. It doesn't matter,
you'll stick with one misinterpreted verse and ignore all the proofs of the Trinity. Who is it that appeared in the
Heavens and spoke at Our Lord's baptism?

Luke 3:21-22
Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; [22] And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by colbe

 

True Jew denies the Didache now.

You should also.

Originally posted by colbe

You deny everything,

I deny that.

Originally posted by colbe

It doesn't matter,
you'll stick with one misinterpreted verse and ignore all the proofs of the Trinity.

The apostles baptized in Jesus name every time. They also wrote that we are buried in Christ and baptized into Christ. You are the one with only one verse that is considered to be questionable.

Originally posted by colbe

Who is it that appeared in the
Heavens and spoke at Our Lord's baptism?

I have answered that already. It was God who spoke.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

The Didache is 2nd century at the earliest. It was not written by the apostles and therefore not to be trusted for doctrine.

There is no concrete evidence for either of these claims, hence the scholarly dating from mid-First Century to mid-Second. Some scholars claim that it pre-dates both Acts and the non-Pauline letters, though I personally do not believe that.

Since the apostles baptized into Christ (See the book of Acts), it is obviously not written by the apostles.

That is circular reasoning, and therefore an invalid statement -- the book of Acts was not written by the Apostles, either.

As we have no reliable dating or authorship of Acts, it is entirely possible (though not necessary) that the author used those words intentionally, even though the Apostles did not. Nowhere in Acts is a baptismal rite actually carried out, so it does not appear to be an instruction manual of how to do it, which the Didache is.

reply to post by adjensen


Baptism in Jesus name is not only in the book of Acts, but other books also.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Baptism in Jesus name is not only in the book of Acts, but other books also.

Such as? Chapter and verse where explicit directions on how to baptize, please. Being "baptized into Christ Jesus", such as in Romans 6, is not "baptism in Jesus' name".

reply to post by adjensen


Being baptized into Christ is the same as baptism in Jesus name. So, Romans 6 does apply. Also...


1 Corinthians 1:13 KJV
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

And...


Luke 24:47 KJV
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Being baptized into Christ is the same as baptism in Jesus name.

No, it isn't. You infer that it is, but it is not.

1 Corinthians 1:13 KJV
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Does not say "baptize in the name of Jesus."

Luke 24:47 KJV
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Does not say "baptize in the name of Jesus." Does not even say "baptize", for pity's sakes.

I've not seen "baptize in the name of Jesus" anywhere outside of Acts, so I think that your claim that "other books have it" is proven false, and my statement that it's possible that those words were chosen intentionally by the author of Acts, regardless of what any Apostle actually said, remains plausible (though unprovable, of course.)

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe
reply to post by colbe

 

True Jew denies the Didache now.

You should also.

Originally posted by colbe

You deny everything,

I deny that.

Originally posted by colbe

It doesn't matter,
you'll stick with one misinterpreted verse and ignore all the proofs of the Trinity.

The apostles baptized in Jesus name every time. They also wrote that we are buried in Christ and baptized into Christ. You are the one with only one verse that is considered to be questionable.

Originally posted by colbe

Who is it that appeared in the
Heavens and spoke at Our Lord's baptism?

I have answered that already. It was God who spoke.

NOTICE ~ True Jew takes my post apart to reply which I do not care for and he knows this. And not all of it is there for you tor read. Why people insist replying like this? It totally takes the other person's words out of context. Keep a person's post together, would you brother and reply below. It is much faster to do besides.

True Jew, you left off the most important thing, the Scripture verse. Remember Saturday Night Live? "How conveeeenient." I know why, it speaks of two divine persons in the Heavens at Jesus' baptism. You use God in the singular for that verse, not true. Private interpretation of Scripture, its only fruit is error and division.

Here's the verses again:

Luke 3:21-22
Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; [22] And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

reply to post by colbe


If it is so important for you to see your post again, read the original. I will not waste space on the board by quoting an entire post when it is not needed. I have not taken your words out of context, however, you have and when shown the proof, no apology followed.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, it isn't. You infer that it is, but it is not.

Yes, it is. Baptism in the name of Someone is baptism into the one who was named.

Originally posted by adjensen
Does not say "baptize in the name of Jesus."

It says that baptism is into the one who was crucified for us, which is Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by adjensen
Does not say "baptize in the name of Jesus." Does not even say "baptize", for pity's sakes.

Since baptism is for the remission of sins, saying remission of sins in my name, is the same as saying baptize in Jesus name.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by colbe

 

If it is so important for you to see your post again, read the original. I will not waste space on the board by quoting an entire post when it is not needed. I have not taken your words out of context, however, you have and when shown the proof, no apology followed.

You didn't give a reply to explain your one God...please explain Luke 3:22.

True Jew, you left off the most important thing, the Scripture verse. Remember Saturday Night Live? "How conveeeenient." I know why, it speaks of two divine persons in the Heavens at Jesus' baptism. You use God in the singular for that verse, not true. Private interpretation of Scripture, its only fruit is error and division.

Here's the verses again:

Luke 3:21-22
Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; [22] And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Explain who the Holy Ghost is spoken of in the above verse. Notice, He is in Heaven. Its been revealed, have you checked how often the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the Gospel TJ?

reply to post by colbe


I've already explained that Scripture in previous posts.