Why not also say what Jesus said? The two verses can not exist without the other. For some it would be hard to draw the conclusion that Jesus is God without both scriptures. I have heard stories of people seeing the revelation of the Might God in Christ by reading Matthew 28:19 and then seeing Acts 2:38 and seeing the similarities.

do they have kids?

I tell you this much, when someone who knows and believes the truth, finds themselves in such a situation, that is one thing, but when you believe something, but raise your kids in an environment that is differnent, you are in a world of trouble.

Yes, yes, indeed! Matthew 28:19 is very much so a One God scripture; if you will!

"baptizing them in the NAME of the Father-John 5:43 Jesus said I come in my Father's Name, the Son-Isaiah 9:6 the Prophet told of His name being called the Mighty God. The angel appeared to Mary saying she is going to bare a son and to call His name Jesus, the Holy Ghost John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name ... so as you all can see the NAME in Matt. 28:19 is very much JESUS CHRIST."

at the time of the switch they did not have kids

I said that because some believe a baptism is no good at all if the name "Jesus" is not spoken. I don't believe in a magical formula! I believe that the purpose and authority of baptism is important. I believe that "in the name of Jesus Christ" is the formula that is most congruent to scripture. I don't, however, believe that those that are baptized using the Matt 28:19 formula are lost and bound for hell!

I think I understand where you are coming from. One man said it like this, "empty hands laid on empty heads, speaking empty words that are dead".


I think though, that unless you clarify yourself, many will assume that you do not think it is needed at all to speak the name of Jesus.

I would say it takes BOTH relational authority, and the use of the Name, for one to work with power. I would not want to be guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You are almost right. :pirate

why not say what petrer said in the bible? "and ye SHALL recieve the GIFT of the holy Ghost."

PP-
Who on here believes anything like that? I've never heard anyone use these words about baptism.

BUMP:

Just wondering why nobody remotely addressed this? I thought it was a good analogy of what those do that insist on putting things in water baptism that aren't necessary.

To me it's like saying, "I baptize you in the name the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Rose of Sharon, Lilly of the Valley and Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Eenie, meanie, mynie, moe - catch a tiger by it's toe - Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers and yo ho ho and a bottle of - (well, okay, not that part) - And it shall come to pass in the last days - Go and sin no more - rise, take up thy bed - and in Jesus Name."

WHY add what isn't necessary. It's the Name that God required.

Why put three more unnecessary medicines in the shot when all it takes is the right ONE to cure me?

Give me the name. You can keep the rest.

Well, for what it's worth ... I agree with you 100%, Jesus Christ is the Name required. The invocation of the singular NAME in Matt. 28:19 is JESUS CHRIST.

In our church anthem, one of the verses says ....

... "our wisdom and perfection, our righteousness and pow'r yea all we need in Jesus will we find this very hour!"

Dare we get into the issue that Jesus is a transliteration from another word which was a transliteration from another word? If we are going to be this specific, does that mean that someone who speaks another language has to be baptised in the name as it was "transliterated" from the original Hebrew into their own language? :D

(waves at "RL") :)

Isn't "Jesus" His Name?
and the word "Christ" (Anointed One or Messiah) an office or a title like the word "Lord"?

Yes, but there were many named "Jesus" in those days (actually the Aramaic original as Sheltiedad pointed out). So, we have to identify which "Jesus" so that heaven knows who we're talking about. And then we have to hope that our English barbarisms aren't too garbled for heaven to understand what we mean.

Of course it all really is a matter of faith in the end, because we don't really even attempt to do it the way the Apostles must have done their baptisms. Horse tank or fiberglass sauna, liturgical recitations or a simple shout; most of what we do is a reaction against some other denomination and not a real search for the Apostolic pattern.

Excellent point, however the 1st Century church seems to have emphasized what the convert was saying and believing not so much what the liturgical officiant was pronouncing over the baptismal font (Acts 2:21 and Acts 22:16).