Baptized into the Name

[Dawnofhope]

When the modern day priests and preachers baptize they say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" but don't name any names. That seems a little fishy compared to Apostles baptizing into the name Jesus. Which seems to be the main point of being baptized, knowing the name of the Lord. What gives? Satanic conspiracy?

Acts 10:49 "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

Acts 8:16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Attitude of Christ
Phillippians 2:9-…Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…

There's no Satan in any of this.

Why was there baptism in the first place? Was it not done by John the Baptist to assist and prepare hearts for those who were waiting to recognise their Messiah? Was the water not a symbol of purity?

After Jesus it was used to maintain that purity and connection to God through Jesus. What other purpose is there?

 

[Kemosloby]

I see. You are opposed to baptisms being done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and believe they should be done in Jesus' name only. Okay, well I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

I'm saying they should use Jesus's name. Make it clear that you're being baptized into Jesus' name, emphasizing that Jesus is Lord. Like the Apostles did.

The Attitude of Christ
Phillippians 2:9-…Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…

 

[Kemosloby]

There's no Satan in any of this.

Why was there baptism in the first place? Was it not done by John the Baptist to assist and prepare hearts for those who were waiting to recognise their Messiah? Was the water not a symbol of purity?

After Jesus it was used to maintain that purity and connection to God through Jesus. What other purpose is there?

John Baptized with water for remission of sin. But didn't rely on his baptism for people to recognize their Messiah. John went ahead and told them to follow the one that came after him, i.e Jesus. And so they were baptized into the name Jesus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

John Baptized with water for remission of sin. But didn't rely on his baptism for people to recognize their Messiah. John went ahead and told them to follow the one that came after him, i.e Jesus. And so they were baptized into the name Jesus.

"Purity of heart" considers an individuals capacity for spiritual perception, not just overcoming sin. To go from blindness to behold the Promise One, a precious gift.

 

[Kemosloby]

"Purity of heart" considers an individuals capacity for spiritual perception, not just overcoming sin. To go from blindness to behold the Promise One, a precious gift.

That's not scriptural at all. That's not even a correct title.."Promise One"? But what are you saying, are you saying baptism with water is enough?

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's not scriptural at all. That's not even a correct title.."Promise One"? But what are you saying, are you saying baptism with water is enough?

God promised Abraham the land of Canaan. God promised through His prophets a Messiah. Christ promised He would return in the Glory of the Father. What's the problem?

No, I'm not saying baptism with water is enough. I'm exploring why we get baptised in the first place.

 

[Kemosloby]

God promised Abraham the land of Canaan. God promised through His prophets a Messiah. Christ promised He would return in the Glory of the Father. What's the problem?

No, I'm not saying baptism with water is enough. I'm exploring why we get baptised in the first place.

Yes, baptism how's and why's are somewhat vague, mostly ceremonial on our parts. It seems to me baptism has 4 progressive parts, one part is learning the name of the Savior Jesus.

 

[moorea944]

John Baptized with water for remission of sin. But didn't rely on his baptism for people to recognize their Messiah. John went ahead and told them to follow the one that came after him, i.e Jesus. And so they were baptized into the name Jesus.

Yes, and Paul one day met up with the people that John baptized and had to re-baptize them. He explains why in Acts 19.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes, and Paul one day met up with the people that John baptized and had to re-baptize them. He explains why in Acts 19.

He didn't rebaptize them exactly. He baptized them into the next two steps of baptism in acts 19. Baptized into the name of Jesus, and baptized with the Holy Spirit.

It's occurring to me that baptism is a 4 part progression, symbolizing mankind returning to God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If a police officer says " I arrest you in the name of the law" he means by the authority of the law. When a minister says he baptizes "in the name of ..." he means by the authority of... You are not baptized into a name but by the authority of the one named.

 

[Kemosloby]

If a police officer says " I arrest you in the name of the law" he means by the authority of the law. When a minister says he baptizes "in the name of ..." he means by the authority of... You are not baptized into a name but by the authority of the one named.

You could be baptized into the law by learning about the law. You could be baptized into Jesus by learning about Jesus and to follow him. Baptized into the Holy Spirit by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit etc. I believe that is the correct meaning of it.

 

[moorea944]

He didn't rebaptize them exactly. He baptized them into the next two steps of baptism in acts 19. Baptized into the name of Jesus, and baptized with the Holy Spirit.

It's occurring to me that baptism is a 4 part progression, symbolizing mankind returning to God.

He didn't rebaptize them exactly.

Sure he did. That's exactly what he did.

He baptized them into the next two steps of baptism in acts 19. Baptized into the name of Jesus, and baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Correct

It's occurring to me that baptism is a 4 part progression, symbolizing mankind returning to God.

Yes, in a way. Never really looked at it that way.... But it's much more too. It's now being "in Christ" and dying in a symbolic death like his and being raised symbollicaly too. It's now being in a "covenant" relationship with our Creator. The promises to Abraham have now been extended to us, we have now been graphed into salvation with the Jews.

 

[Kemosloby]

Sure he did. That's exactly what he did.

Correct

Yes, in a way. Never really looked at it that way.... But it's much more too. It's now being "in Christ" and dying in a symbolic death like his and being raised symbollicaly too. It's now being in a "covenant" relationship with our Creator. The promises to Abraham have now been extended to us, we have now been graphed into salvation with the Jews.

Correct, yet the jews before Jesus were saved by only water baptism, since no other baptism was yet available.
But for someone who is just getting started, water baptism seems a good place to start? Repent from sin, preparing you way to follow and accept Jesus, or be "baptised into the name of Jesus".

 

[Fool]

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

so christianity isn't anthropolatry


anthropo-

anthropo-
before a vowel, anthrop-, word-forming element meaning "pertaining to man or human beings," from Greek anthropos "man; human being (including women)," from Attic andra (genitive andros), from Greek aner "man" (as opposed to a woman, a god, or a boy), from PIE root *ner- (2) "man," also "vigorous, vital, strong" (see andro-).


-latry
word-forming element meaning "worship of," used as an element in native formations from 19c. (such as bardolatry), from Greek -latreia "worship, service paid to the gods, hired labor," related to latron (n.) "pay, hire," latris "servant, worshipper," from PIE *le- (1) "to get" (see larceny).

 

[Kemosloby]

Another example:They were "baptized into Moses" not baptized in the name of Moses.

1 cor 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

 

[rharris001]

I would like to input here: Water baptism is not Jesus' baptism, it is John the Baptizers baptism. Jesus' baptism of his followers would not be with water but with fire and spirit. Jesus' baptism is a greater baptism. Those who claim to follow Christ are not to be disciples or followers of John the Baptizer.

Even John the Baptizer said at Luke 3:16, "I baptize you with water, but One more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Jesus is greater and more powerful than John (obviously as The Son of God) and thus, his baptism would be greater. Notice that Jesus' baptism is NOT with water, it is with Holy Spirit and fire.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that Jesus NEVER baptized his disciples (or his chosen ones [Apostles] with water. We do not see any of Jesus' disciples baptize each other with water. WE DO see Jesus' followers being baptized with Holy Spirit and fire. (Acts Chapter 2)

Yet, there is an insistence with water baptism in the world today.

The so-called believing Christian world has it wrong with regards baptism. Jesus' baptism is not with water.

 

[Kemosloby]

I would like to input here: Water baptism is not Jesus' baptism, it is John the Baptizers baptism. Jesus' baptism of his followers would not be with water but with fire and spirit. Jesus' baptism is a greater baptism. Those who claim to follow Christ are not to be disciples or followers of John the Baptizer.

Even John the Baptizer said at Luke 3:16, "I baptize you with water, but One more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Jesus is greater and more powerful than John (obviously as The Son of God) and thus, his baptism would be greater. Notice that Jesus' baptism is NOT with water, it is with Holy Spirit and fire.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that Jesus NEVER baptized his disciples (or his chosen ones [Apostles] with water. We do not see any of Jesus' disciples baptize each other with water. WE DO see Jesus' followers being baptized with Holy Spirit and fire. (Acts Chapter 2)

Yet, there is an insistence with water baptism in the world today.

The so-called believing Christian world has it wrong with regards baptism. Jesus' baptism is not with water.

Yeah, you might be right. Here in Acts 10:47 it doesn't make sense that Peter would say "Who can deny them water" then orders them baptized into the name of Jesus. Not all bibles are worded that way, one omits the word water, which makes more sense. Yet the Gentiles who were grafted in by the Holy Spirit had already repented from sin and were being rewarded for their good works. Baptism with water for repentence of sin might be appropriate for some and not for others.

The Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit
…For they heard them speaking in tongues and exalting God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water to baptize these people? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have!” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for a few days.…

New Living Translation
"Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?"

 

[Katzpur]

I would like to input here: Water baptism is not Jesus' baptism, it is John the Baptizers baptism. Jesus' baptism of his followers would not be with water but with fire and spirit. Jesus' baptism is a greater baptism. Those who claim to follow Christ are not to be disciples or followers of John the Baptizer.

Even John the Baptizer said at Luke 3:16, "I baptize you with water, but One more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

Jesus is greater and more powerful than John (obviously as The Son of God) and thus, his baptism would be greater. Notice that Jesus' baptism is NOT with water, it is with Holy Spirit and fire.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that Jesus NEVER baptized his disciples (or his chosen ones [Apostles] with water. We do not see any of Jesus' disciples baptize each other with water. WE DO see Jesus' followers being baptized with Holy Spirit and fire. (Acts Chapter 2)

Yet, there is an insistence with water baptism in the world today.

The so-called believing Christian world has it wrong with regards baptism. Jesus' baptism is not with water.

I'm always so amazed to hear people try to justify the idea that baptism by water is unnecessary. Apparently Jesus felt John's baptism was essential for Him personally. Otherwise, He'd just have skipped it. It also appears that this decision met with the clear approval of His Father in Heaven. Finally, He did tell us that except we be born of both water and the Spirit, we can't enter inter God's kingdom. You can claim that being "born of water" pertains to being born period, but the scriptures refer to physical birth as being "born of the flesh." Baptism by water is being born of water, and baptism by the Holy Ghost is being born of the Spirit.