But they responded in acts by baptizing in Jesus Name though why is that unless Jesus is the name jesus was talking about? Also wouldn’t that fit in with verses like this also that say “hey bro use the name of Jesus”?
I used to believe in Matthew 28:19 myself as it is... for some time... but I started looking into some things and I’ve concluded father, son, Holy Ghost aren’t names. I mean my physical father’s name isn’t father it’s Mike. I’m his son but my name isn’t son it’s Mike Jr. I’m not saying this is the only reason I turned away from that train of thought.. besides it took me a year to make the switch but this is just a common sense one that really hit me
Whatever , nonsense is what you speak , Jesus told that man that he would be in Paradise WITH Jesus that very day , that man did not need to be dunked in water , you are like the pharisees that desire to make men follow their views , if you choose to believe that way have at it , your need to tell the world that they are not saved unless they do as you do is hogwash rubbish
All you do is make poor arguments and critique my character. Just a tip from a minister... as a Christian a key component towards bringing people to Christ is persuasion not hate and poor argumentation. And so far all you’ve done is display the latter tbh... the others have provided sciprtuer and critical thinking that has made this thread interesting. You haven’t provided anything worth considering tbh. First of all if you bothered to not just read but also comprehend my response you would notice that I’m agreeing with the fact that he didn’t need to be dumped in water... I’m simply explaining why he didn’t need to be dumped in water because of the period of time because Christ didn’t fulfill his purpose yet.
While it is good to see you know that water does not save you , you speak as if you are somehow more 'enlightened' that anyone else
.. I put quotation marks around Christian “christians” that means people who see themselves as christians but when you examine them they aren’t Christ like. Whenever you see “” around a word it means not really. For example if I say sure he’s a “great basketball player” it’s sarcasm or pretend or an exaggeration but not the actual thing. “”
You sort of prove my point though even if you were in a hypothetical world right that the father son and Holy Ghost was used in the past just like Johns baptism it’s a thing of the past used before the death and ressurextion of Christ. In acts they even went from Johns baptism straight to Jesus Name baptism. They said in the name of the one who died for them... name of the son... his name... I mean it’s not trinitarian it’s all pointing towards the name of Jesus. What’s interesting though is again if you were right in a hypothetical about baptism in the father, son, Holy Ghost, there would be a transition from it to Jesus Name like there is with Johns baptism but there isn’t. As if they never did it like that in the acrostic sense as you suggest. Since it’s accepted that the two baptisms are different in the religious world there should be a And by not using that name you’re just going against what peter was trying so hard to defend against enemies in the verse I mentioned.. doing everything in the name of Jesus.
And before you say acts didn’t give a formula... acts 2:38 is a formula... also the Bible talks about baptism being buried with Christ.. what better way then to be baptized in Jesus Name.
but they didn't becuase father, son, and holy ghost aren't names. so why you 2 do it is beyond me.
I never said water saves.
All I've done I'd provide to you what God's word said. I'm honestly sad you don't want to just read it for what it is.
