Being Baptised in Jesus(only) Name?
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:11 pm
Hello all,
I have a family member the is "Jesus Only", and we had a very good conversation. I am just looking for a complete understanding to follow that belief fairly. He believes that Jesus is the Father and is also the Holy Spirit and that when we see Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus is really praying to himself in heaven. He continues to say that this was ok because Jesus was a physical form of God(or himself) therefore in a human body and nature it was neccesary for him to do so. He also stated that Jesus was God but had no Godly power.
Now, what i am looking at here is hard to swallow and I will be fair to say that even the trinitarian concept is hard to swallow also, in all fairness. But, the dogmatism of what he is explaining to me, that you must be baptised in or by saying Jesus' name is causing me to ask, does it really matter?
Should not that belief be called "Yashua Only"?
If we set the argument that Jesus is the equivalent of Yashua, could we not say that saying, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has the same implication? I understand that Matt. 28:19 is speaking of the authority of Gods nature or power and not our own. The same is true as in Matt. 10:41 which speak of receiving a prophet in a prophets name, this speaks of the authority of one prophet of God being authoritative enough for the ecceptance of another prophet of God. My cousin believes that the verse in Matt. 28:19 should be literal and Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Steve or anyone else with knowledge on this subject, your input would be appreciated.
Thank you
I have a family member the is "Jesus Only", and we had a very good conversation. I am just looking for a complete understanding to follow that belief fairly. He believes that Jesus is the Father and is also the Holy Spirit and that when we see Jesus praying to the Father, Jesus is really praying to himself in heaven. He continues to say that this was ok because Jesus was a physical form of God(or himself) therefore in a human body and nature it was neccesary for him to do so. He also stated that Jesus was God but had no Godly power.
Now, what i am looking at here is hard to swallow and I will be fair to say that even the trinitarian concept is hard to swallow also, in all fairness. But, the dogmatism of what he is explaining to me, that you must be baptised in or by saying Jesus' name is causing me to ask, does it really matter?
Should not that belief be called "Yashua Only"?
If we set the argument that Jesus is the equivalent of Yashua, could we not say that saying, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has the same implication? I understand that Matt. 28:19 is speaking of the authority of Gods nature or power and not our own. The same is true as in Matt. 10:41 which speak of receiving a prophet in a prophets name, this speaks of the authority of one prophet of God being authoritative enough for the ecceptance of another prophet of God. My cousin believes that the verse in Matt. 28:19 should be literal and Jesus is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Steve or anyone else with knowledge on this subject, your input would be appreciated.
Thank you