Will We See the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven, or Just Jesus?

[First and the Last]

Wake up, First and the Last!!!

We are not to guess at the baptismal formula in Acts when Christ Himself has already given it!

Acts is the account of what happened and is obviously incomplete on all that was said and done.

• Acts 8:16:"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
• Acts 10:48:"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
• Acts 19:5:"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Are these Scriptures wrong?

 

[First and the Last]

The fault lies in trying to interpret Luke's account of water baptism in the Book of Acts to fit into their doctrine, rather than following the direct command of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It's a slap in the face of our Lord, and there will be consequences!

It's important to approach the teachings of Scripture with a balanced understanding of their authority and significance. While the words of Jesus, often depicted in red in some Bible versions, hold profound importance as they directly convey His teachings and commands, we must also recognize the role of the apostles, including Peter, who spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The red-letter words attributed to Jesus highlight His unique authority and divine wisdom. They encompass His teachings on love, grace, repentance, faith, and the kingdom of God, providing us with foundational truths for Christian living. However, the entire Bible, including the writings of the apostles like Peter, Paul, and others, is equally inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These writings complement and expand upon the teachings of Jesus, offering further insights into God's plan of redemption and His expectations for His followers.

When we consider Acts 2:38, where Peter commands repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit, we see a direct application of Jesus's teachings and promises (Matthew 28:19-20). Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, spoke with divine authority and clarity, guiding the early believers according to Christ's commission.

Therefore, while the red-letter words of Jesus are pivotal in understanding His direct teachings and commands, Peter's words in Acts 2:38 are equally authoritative as they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Both serve to illuminate and fulfill God's will for salvation and the life of the Church. As believers, we honor both the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic teachings under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, recognizing their unified message of repentance, baptism, and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit in the life of every believer. This balanced approach ensures that we heed the entirety of God's Word and faithfully follow His instructions for our spiritual journey.

 

[Charlie24]

• Acts 8:16:"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
• Acts 10:48:"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
• Acts 19:5:"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Are these Scriptures wrong?

 

[First and the Last]

• Acts 8:16:"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
• Acts 10:48:"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
• Acts 19:5:"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Are these Scriptures wrong?

No they are not.

 

[Charlie24]

• Acts 8:16:"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
• Acts 10:48:"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
• Acts 19:5:"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Are these Scriptures wrong?

Who has the authority over the baptismal formula? Is it the multi-accounts of Luke in the book of Acts, or the Lord Jesus Christ?

Be very careful how you answer this.

Math. 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

 

[First and the Last]

Who has the authority over the baptismal formula? Is it the multi-accounts of Luke in the book of Acts, or the Lord Jesus Christ?

Be very careful how you answer this.

Math. 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

You think that Jesus is greater than the Holy Ghost speaking through Peter?

 

[Charlie24]

Who has the authority over the baptismal formula? Is it the multi-accounts of Luke in the book of Acts, or the Lord Jesus Christ?

Be very careful how you answer this.

Math. 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Did Luke cut it short by saying "they were baptized in the name of Lord" for whatever reason" Did he assume the readers would already know Christ had said to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? We don't know.

But we know that Matthew took the guess work out of it.

 

[Charlie24]

You think that Jesus is greater than the Holy Ghost speaking through Peter

They are equal and the reason both are included in the baptismal formula along with the Father.

 

[Charlie24]

They are equal and the reason both are included in the baptismal formula along with the Father.

The only reason you reject the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that it acknowledges the Trinity.

The whole concept of the Oneness theory is down the tube if this is done.

So the Oneness theology must forever reject this commandment of the Lord.

 

[First and the Last]

The only reason you reject the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that it acknowledges the Trinity.

The whole concept of the Oneness theory is down the tube if this is done.

So the Oneness theology must forever reject this commandment of the Lord.

historical evidence regarding Matthew 28:19. The following claims have often been leveled against this verse:

1. It doesn’t appear in any manuscript of Matthew before the third century A.D.
2. Early Christians did not follow the instruction to baptise in the formula in Matthew 28:19
3. Eusebius had an original copy of Matthew and doesn’t quote the words
4. The Catholic Church confess to changing the words
5. A Hebrew text of Matthew exists that doesn’t contain the words
6. Most modern theologians agree that the words are inauthentic

 

[Charlie24]

historical evidence regarding Matthew 28:19. The following claims have often been leveled against this verse:

1. It doesn’t appear in any manuscript of Matthew before the third century A.D.
2. Early Christians did not follow the instruction to baptise in the formula in Matthew 28:19
3. Eusebius had an original copy of Matthew and doesn’t quote the words
4. The Catholic Church confess to changing the words
5. A Hebrew text of Matthew exists that doesn’t contain the words
6. Most modern theologians agree that the words are inauthentic

So from history's hearsays you are claiming the Almighty God has allowed a lie to exist in His Holy Word?

If there's one lie there must be another. Tell me, First and the Last, can we or can we not take the Word of God as the absolute truth?

 

[First and the Last]

The only reason you reject the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that it acknowledges the Trinity.

The whole concept of the Oneness theory is down the tube if this is done.

So the Oneness theology must forever reject this commandment of the Lord.

I understand that the topic of baptism and the interpretation of Jesus' commandment in Matthew 28:19 can be a sensitive and deeply rooted theological issue. Our approach to baptism is not about rejecting Jesus' commandment, but rather about understanding and fulfilling it in the way I believe He intended. When Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," I see this as a directive to use the singular name that represents the fullness of God’s revelation. I believe that name to be Jesus.

God is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration and indwelling (the Fullness of the Godhead bodily in the singular name. The greatest revealed name of God Jesus Christ). Thus, when we baptize in the name of Jesus, we are not denying the roles or manifestations of God but rather affirming the unity and completeness of God as revealed in Christ. This practice aligns with how the apostles carried out baptism in the book of Acts, where they consistently baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5).

It’s important to clarify that our practice is rooted in our interpretation of Scripture and our understanding of God’s nature. We deeply respect and honor the words of Jesus, striving to adhere to His teachings as closely as possible. Our emphasis on the name of Jesus in baptism is a reflection of our belief in the oneness of God and the authority of His name, not a rejection of any part of His command. We believe this understanding brings us closer to the intended meaning of His words and aligns with the practices of the early church.

I hope this clarifies my position and underscores that our commitment is to faithfully follow Jesus' commandment as we understand it through Scripture. Blessings to you as we continue to seek deeper understanding and unity in our faith journeys.

 

[Charlie24]

I understand that the topic of baptism and the interpretation of Jesus' commandment in Matthew 28:19 can be a sensitive and deeply rooted theological issue. Our approach to baptism is not about rejecting Jesus' commandment, but rather about understanding and fulfilling it in the way I believe He intended. When Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," I see this as a directive to use the singular name that represents the fullness of God’s revelation. I believe that name to be Jesus.

God is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in regeneration and indwelling (the Fullness of the Godhead bodily in the singular name. The greatest revealed name of God Jesus Christ). Thus, when we baptize in the name of Jesus, we are not denying the roles or manifestations of God but rather affirming the unity and completeness of God as revealed in Christ. This practice aligns with how the apostles carried out baptism in the book of Acts, where they consistently baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5).

It’s important to clarify that our practice is rooted in our interpretation of Scripture and our understanding of God’s nature. We deeply respect and honor the words of Jesus, striving to adhere to His teachings as closely as possible. Our emphasis on the name of Jesus in baptism is a reflection of our belief in the oneness of God and the authority of His name, not a rejection of any part of His command. We believe this understanding brings us closer to the intended meaning of His words and aligns with the practices of the early church.

I hope this clarifies my position and underscores that our commitment is to faithfully follow Jesus' commandment as we understand it through Scripture. Blessings to you as we continue to seek deeper understanding and unity in our faith journeys.

More Oneness rhetoric! When the heat is applied you again turn to love and blessings.

 

[First and the Last]

More Oneness rhetoric! When the heat is applied you again turn to love and blessings.

There is no hate or animosity to what I am saying. Only Historical and Scriptural proof. I do it all in love none of my comments are hateful in anyway.

 

[First and the Last]

This is all fact:

Eusebius wrote a lot about the Scriptures, and frequently quoted from them. In his book published in English as “The Proof of the Gospel” (Original title “Demonstratio Evangelica”), my version of which has a Scripture index in the back (1981 version - Baker Book House), it can be found that in just this one book he quoted Mt 28:19 no less than seven times - sometimes in part, sometimes in full.

Not once in Eusebius’ seven quotes of Mt 28:19 does the phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” appear!!

When he quotes the whole sentence, it reads as follows:

“Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”

The Proof of the Gospel was completed a decade or two before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, at which time Constantine began to force the doctrine of the Trinity on the established Church. Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine and attended the Council of Nicea as Bishop of Caesarea.

After the Council of Nicea, Eusebius' writings all of a sudden contain the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matt 28:19, when in all Eusebius' works prior to Nicea this reading is not found. Incredibly, a total of 16 partial or full quotes of this Scripture can be found in his writings prior to Nicea; all of them read "in my name" rather than "baptizing in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit". It seems quite evident that Constantine forced theologians from this point on to toe the Catholic line.

 

[Charlie24]

There is no hate or animosity to what I am saying. Only Historical and Scriptural proof. I do it all in love none of my comments are hateful in anyway.

I see no hate on either side, just a short coming of answers apart from your usual Oneness speeches.

 

[Charlie24]

This is all fact:

Eusebius wrote a lot about the Scriptures, and frequently quoted from them. In his book published in English as “The Proof of the Gospel” (Original title “Demonstratio Evangelica”), my version of which has a Scripture index in the back (1981 version - Baker Book House), it can be found that in just this one book he quoted Mt 28:19 no less than seven times - sometimes in part, sometimes in full.

Not once in Eusebius’ seven quotes of Mt 28:19 does the phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” appear!!

When he quotes the whole sentence, it reads as follows:

“Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”

The Proof of the Gospel was completed a decade or two before the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, at which time Constantine began to force the doctrine of the Trinity on the established Church. Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine and attended the Council of Nicea as Bishop of Caesarea.

After the Council of Nicea, Eusebius' writings all of a sudden contain the trinitarian baptismal formula in Matt 28:19, when in all Eusebius' works prior to Nicea this reading is not found. Incredibly, a total of 16 partial or full quotes of this Scripture can be found in his writings prior to Nicea; all of them read "in my name" rather than "baptizing in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit". It seems quite evident that Constantine forced theologians from this point on to toe the Catholic line.

So for the sake of this conversation let's say everything you have said here is true.

Then Matt. 28:19 is not true, which means it's a lie. Which means all of Scripture is now under doubt from Gen. to Rev,

We can all change the Scripture to mean what we want it to mean because God has allowed a lie to exist in His Word.

Think about what you're saying here, First and the Last. Do you actually believe God would allow this to happen?

 

[Charlie24]

So for the sake of this conversation let's say everything you have said here is true.

Then Matt. 28:19 is not true, which means it's a lie. Which means all of Scripture is now under doubt from Gen. to Rev,

We can all change the Scripture to mean what we want it to mean because God has allowed a lie to exist in His Word.

Think about what you're saying here, First and the Last. Do you actually believe God would allow this to happen?

I'm 100% in the boat with God, believing every line in every Book of the Bible.

I don't understand all of it by a long shot, but I believe in my God that He has preserved His Word in tact exactly the way He wanted me to read it.

If I can't believe that, then I have no hope in this life.

 

[First and the Last]

So for the sake of this conversation let's say everything you have said here is true.

Then Matt. 28:19 is not true, which means it's a lie. Which means all of Scripture is now under doubt from Gen. to Rev,

We can all change the Scripture to mean what we want it to mean because God has allowed a lie to exist in His Word.

Think about what you're saying here, First and the Last. Do you actually believe God would allow this to happen?

I am not saying it is a lie that verse is there. Just the prepositional phrases were added after the Apostolic age by a council headed by a Roman Catholic Emperor.

 

[First and the Last]

I'm 100% in the boat with God, believing every line in every Book of the Bible.

I don't understand all of it by a long shot, but I believe in my God that He has preserved His Word in tact exactly the way He wanted me to read it.

If I can't believe that, then I have no hope in this life.

I believe in every word from the original writers to be 100% true. But when I find Historical evidence of Scriptures changed, added to, or taken away after the Apostles have died or last Book of Bible written, I will question it every time.