Did Jesus write the Bible or build a church?

[avflf]

"avflf:

For one they baptised in the name of Jesus and they did not pray to departed spirits.

Who? The 1C ‘Catholic’ Church? Or the 4th C ‘Roman’ Church?

Oh and you are going to have to do better than that. Saying something does not make it so. If you have any evidence for what you say, please share it with us so that we can understand your line of reasoning. For I believe that this is still a discussion board and therefore effective communication is still ever so important.

Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19). Now, either the first Apostles misunderstood Christ’s words and the RC church corrected them or the Apostles understood exactly what Christ was saying.
Eusebius Pamphilli, Bishop of Caesarea (270 - 340 AD) wrote in his commentaries’ 18 quotes of Mat. 28:19 the following “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” Now the question arises - Who fiddled the books?

 

[Teflon93]

Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19). Now, either the first Apostles misunderstood Christ’s words and the RC church corrected them or the Apostles understood exactly what Christ was saying.
Eusebius Pamphilli, Bishop of Caesarea (270 - 340 AD) wrote in his commentaries’ 18 quotes of Mat. 28:19 the following “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” Now the question arises - Who fiddled the books?

I would say you did.

Is Christ not one in being with the Father? Isn’t baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as in the name of Christ?

Who do you believe Christ to be?

 

[estesbob]

Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19). Now, either the first Apostles misunderstood Christ’s words and the RC church corrected them or the Apostles understood exactly what Christ was saying.
Eusebius Pamphilli, Bishop of Caesarea (270 - 340 AD) wrote in his commentaries’ 18 quotes of Mat. 28:19 the following “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” Now the question arises - Who fiddled the books?

Hmm??? Isnt the “Son” Jesus.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Oh, come on!

Calm down. No need for all that excitement.

avflf:

You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19). Now, either the first Apostles misunderstood Christ’s words and the RC church corrected them or the Apostles understood exactly what Christ was saying.

How do you know what I know? And as for all this you have said: so? What is the relevance of this? I don’t understand what point you are trying to get across.

avflf:

Eusebius Pamphilli, Bishop of Caesarea (270 - 340 AD) wrote in his commentaries’ 18 quotes of Mat. 28:19 the following “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” Now the question arises - Who fiddled the books?

Fiddled? I am not following you. Perhaps you could just say what you want to say plainly. Then we could understand and respond accordingly. OK?

In fact, why don’t we speed things up this way:

1. You sum up what you mean plainly.
2. You provide a line of reasoning for your summary.
3. You provide links to back up what you are saying.
4. We read and respond in kind.

Otherwise we will not be communicating clearly. And that is not good.

 

[avflf]

I would say you did.

Is Christ not one in being with the Father? Isn’t baptising in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as in the name of Christ?

Who do you believe Christ to be?

“I would say you did” You should put comments like this in the recycle bin. It does you no credit.

The point is: if it is immaterial what formula is used why did the church not stick to the one used by the Apostles; after all, the catholic church prides itself in getting their facts right from Peter and Paul. But, somehow, on this occasion the Apostolic tradition doesn’t count for much.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19).

Gosh av, your pony has left mine in the dust.

The New Testament was written between 51 and 125. Are you saying that Matthew is not part of the New Testament but that the Roman Church wrote it in the 4th C?

Or if Matthew is part of the New Testament, then how could Matthew have been written both in the 1st C and in the 4th C? I just don’t get it. Can someone explain this to me? Are we talking about Hawking’s Flexiverse again?

In any case, for those of you who are curious, av is referring to this in Matthew. (It would have been helpful had he quoted it, but here it is.):

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Mt 28:16-19 DRC

And this is the commentary given in the DRC:

All power, etc. . .See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.

 

[avflf]

Hmm??? Isnt the “Son” Jesus.

Yes, and the Father is Jehovah. Didn’t catch the Holy Spirit’s name though.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, and the Father is Jehovah. Didn’t catch the Holy Spirit’s name though.

You know none of your posts make any sense at all. Bye.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avffl:

…The point is: if it is immaterial what formula is used why did the church not stick to the one used by the Apostles…

I think I might see where the problem lies. Are you basing your opinion on faulty dilemma thinking? That is, that the Church had to chose either the Acts or Matthew, but not both?

The Church has no problem with both/and, particularly when either/or cannot be justified logically.
avffl:

…after all, the catholic church prides itself in getting their facts right from Peter and Paul…

According to who?

So no facts from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? What about Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabbees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, as well as small portions of Esther and Daniel and any of the other books of the Bible? What about Tradition? You haven’t mentioned that yet. Oh, I see you mention it below.
avffl:

But, somehow, on this occasion the Apostolic tradition doesn’t count for much.

Bait-and-switch? Or just non sequitur? By the way, I would like to know whether you believe that there are any other occasions on which Tradition counts for much. Thank you.

 

[avflf]

Calm down. No need for all that excitement.

Not excited. Just an expression of unbelief

How do you know what I know? And as for all this you have said: so? What is the relevance of this? I don’t understand what point you are trying to get across.

I assumed that anyone discussing the Bible would be knowledgable of the Scripture. Sorry if I presumed too much.
The relevance stems from a number of posts ago regarding my comment that the 1st C church differed from the 4th C one.

Fiddled? I am not following you. Perhaps you could just say what you want to say plainly. Then we could understand and respond accordingly. OK?

In fact, why don’t we speed things up this way:

1. You sum up what you mean plainly.
2. You provide a line of reasoning for your summary.
3. You provide links to back up what you are saying.
4. We read and respond in kind.

Otherwise we will not be communicating clearly. And that is not good.

You must know (sorry, me and my suppositions again) that the Apostles were supposed to be led to ALL truth when the HS was sent. Thus, it is reasonable to accept that “in the name of Jesus” was and is the correct formula for baptism. The mention of the good Bishop was meant to show that in his understanding the passage we now have in Matthew was not the one he was familiar with. Hence either his verse was the correct one or the one in Matthew as we have it is the inspired version. That’s all I was drawing attention to.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Yes, and the Father is Jehovah.

Is Jehova the only name for the Father? What about ‘Father’? I think there might be other names too.

avflf:

Didn’t catch the Holy Spirit’s name though.

 

[avflf]

Is Jehova the only name for the Father? What about ‘Father’? I think there might be other names too.

"Father’ is a title not a proper name. “Son” is also a title. “Holy Ghost” is a title. “God” is a title. He used to be known as El Shaddai - God Almighty. But he revealed his proper name to Moses - YHWH. which people pronounce Yhaweh or Jehovah.

 

[briang72]

:twocents:

As a writer, would you have referred to the baptism of Jesus as the baptism of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Or would you have simply differentiated the 2 baptisms by qualifying them as either John’s or Jesus’?

Matthew 28:19 shows the specific means by which Jesus told the Apostles to baptize.

“in the name of” is not a formula. Pleas read about Trinitarian Baptism

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Not excited. Just an expression of unbelief

Thanks for this. I can relate.

avflf:

I assumed that anyone discussing the Bible would be knowledgable of the Scripture. Sorry if I presumed too much.

This sounds like a putdown. Surely you didn’t mean it that way? Perhaps instead you didn’t take into account that it would be very difficult for us to be fully conversant with the exegesis of all 30 000+ denominations and their regional variants.

Yet we never know who will visit us with questions or even lessons. So, if you can possibly find your way to being a little more patient with us, we will have to ask you to set out what your particular interpretation of Scripture is so that we can follow what you are saying and hold up our half of the discussion. OK? This is the only way we have of keeping up with the Semper Reformanda.

avflf:

The relevance stems from a number of posts ago regarding my comment that the 1st C church differed from the 4th C one.

Ah no. You have never explained the relevance. Only posted what looked like an unsubstantiated claim.

avflf:

You must know (sorry, me and my suppositions again) that the Apostles were supposed to be led to ALL truth when the HS was sent. Thus, it is reasonable to accept that “in the name of Jesus” was and is the correct formula for baptism. The mention of the good Bishop was meant to show that in his understanding the passage we now have in Matthew was not the one he was familiar with. Hence either his verse was the correct one or the one in Matthew as we have it is the inspired version. That’s all I was drawing attention to.

I think I might be following you.

Are you saying that when Matthew is saying “in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” he is really saying “in the Name of Jesus”?

Or that Matthew was not an Apostle?

These results would have been derived from interpretation, would it not? Whose interpretation then?

 

[avflf]

Bait-and-switch? Or just non sequitur? By the way, I would like to know whether you believe that there are any other occasions on which Tradition counts for much. Thank you.

I suppose… there are a couple of referrences in the Bible

*(Mar 7:7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mar 7:8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(Mar 7:9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.*

Don’t rightly know if this helps.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

"Father’ is a title not a proper name.

What about Abba?

avflf:

“Son” is also a title. “Holy Ghost” is a title. “God” is a title.

I see now. A title of respect hopefully? Like when I address my cardinal-elect, I call him Your Grace instead of Tom? But he still understands that, when I am saying ‘Your Grace’ I am calling him? So when addressing people respectfully, what is the difference between a title and a name?

avflf:

He used to be known as El Shaddai - God Almighty. But he revealed his proper name to Moses - YHWH. which people pronounce Yhaweh or Jehovah.

avflf, does God change?

What happened to all these other names? El? Adonai? Shalom? Elohim? En Sof? Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh? El Elyon? Shaphat? El Roi? Palet? Gaol?Jehova-Jireh? Jehova-Rophe? Jehova-Nissi? Jehova-M’Kaddesh?

Did they just disappear?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I suppose… there are a couple of referrences in the Bible

(Mar 7:7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mar 7:8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
(Mar 7:9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Don’t rightly know if this helps.

It might help if you could complete a line of reasoning and say what you mean. Do you want to help? If so, then please just say plainly what you mean.

Btw, what is the topic of this thread?

 

[estesbob]

It might help if you could complete a line of reasoning and say what you mean. Do you want to help? If so, then please just say plainly what you mean.

Btw, what is the topic of this thread?

If he doesnt say clearly what he means he can keeo playng the ganes he as playing.

 

[Bishopite]

One more:

Quakers

Who founded it?

George Fox in 1649

What was he before that?

Presbyterian

Who founded it?

John Knox in 1560

What was he before that?

Calvinist

Who founded it?

John Calvin in 1555

What was he before that?

Catholic

Wait a minute!! If you that good at giving evidence of when all of those differing denominations were established then when was that non-denominational “Bible church” established that just opened up around down the street? Hmmm?

Ha stumped ya didn’t I.

 

[fellowChristian]

Yes, and the Father is Jehovah. Didn’t catch the Holy Spirit’s name though.

Actually

Online Etymology (study of words) Dictionary - Cite This Source
**Jehovah **

1530, **Tyndale’s erroneous transliteration of Heb. Tetragramaton YHWH, using vowel points of Adhonai “my lord” **(see Yahweh). Used for YHWH (the full name being too sacred for utterance) in four places in the Old Testament in the K.J.V. where the usual translation lord would have been inconvenient; taken as the principal and personal name of God. The vowel substitution was originally made by the Masoretes as a direction to substitute Adhonai for “the ineffable name.” European students of Heb. took this literally, which yielded L. JeHoVa (first attested in writings of Galatinus, 1516). Jehovah’s Witnesses “member of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society” first attested 1933; the organization founded c.1879 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916); the name from Isa. xliii:10.

More from a Hebrew for Christians website
familybible.org/teaching/messianic/jehovah.htm