All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, having given us this again, tell us about Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. How does the scripture show the Eunuch calling on the name of the Lord?

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

Sister Pressing-On, Don't even Baptist believe on the Name of Jesus.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Sister Pressing-On, Don't even Baptist believe on the Name of Jesus.

I think you know we are talking about the beginning of the NT church and what the Apostles were presenting to the people. Jesus read from the scrolls, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It was the beginning and that is where we are in the discussion.

But, yes, they do. My mother claims to be Trinitarian and believes that Jesus is God. But, she believes in baptizing in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost. To me, that is not a full understanding of His message and the power of His name.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think you know we are talking about the beginning of the NT church and what the Apostles were presenting to the people. Jesus read from the scrolls, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It was the beginning and that is where we are in the discussion.

But, yes, they do. My mother claims to be Trinitarian and believes that Jesus is God. But, she believes in baptizing in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost. To me, that is not a full understanding of His message and the power of His name.

I understand what you were talking about. So do you believe that your Mom is lost???

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

The claim was made that it was not the baptizee (Paul) being instructed to call on the name of the Lord but was the baptizor (Ananias) who was to call on the name of the Lord. Who is doing what to whom in the passage is important, giving an illustration of the baptism process that Paul himself followed. You've not given your view on the language of the passage. Was it Ananias calling on the name of the Lord or was it Paul?

When we determine that, we'll move on to the eunuch. Why attempt to dismiss the passage without determining what is being taught in the passage?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The claim was made that it was not the baptizee (Paul) being instructed to call on the name of the Lord but was the baptizor (Ananias) who was to call on the name of the Lord. Who is doing what to whom in the passage is important, giving an illustration of the baptism process that Paul himself followed. You've not given your view on the language of the passage. Was it Ananias calling on the name of the Lord or was it Paul?

When we determine that, we'll move on to the eunuch. Why attempt to dismiss the passage without determining what is being taught in the passage?

My point is that if this was such an adamant argument on the wording, Phillip and the Eunuch would have the same story and they do not. It is simply a confession of his faith before he is baptized. We don't really know, from scriptures, what is said by anyone. We do know that a person must confess to believing on Jesus Christ and then submit to baptism. It's a moot argument in my opinion and nothing to make a doctrine out of.