[chette777]

well Tbones,

that is quite a lot to chew on.

I am a moderate dispensationalists and when I took and looked at Matthew as transitional from law to grace and from OT times to NT times, it makes a whole lot more sense than trying to fit it in as just the dispensation of Law

I later the other day after posting found that John's father was of the priesthood. But John himself was not involved in the priesthood as he was committed to the Nazarite Vow and such was exempt from duties of a priest per se. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah of which nothing was spoken of concerning the priesthood. then that takes us into Hebrews of which Tandi already got everyone.

having said that what do you think the Apostles would of though Jesus Meant in Baptize them? of course they only knew of water Baptism (mat 28). If I am correct they did not consider the empowerment of Acts 2 to be a baptism.

Paul is the only one we know that presents a different Baptism other than water and he never commanded or taught anyone to water baptize.

I wouldn't think anyone will ban you for your belief on this issue. I do think Brother Tim should rethink why the forums of AV1611 have been established. they weren't done so anyone could "rip em up" on anyone's belief on Baptism. this is an area that I thank God is a non essential to our salvation.

As I said if anyone claims to follow the command of Matthew 28 they have a lot more than water baptism to follow. Most here will first say they can't go forth and heal the sick, cast out demons because they do not believe those gifts are for today. but there is no choice here, you do "ALL" that Jesus commanded or you are in disobedience.

My last note "in the name", Jesus said many would come "In my name" and would say and teach many blasphemous things. "In the name of" is an approved Authority from God to do such things, not the actual physical or spiritual baptizing or immersing of the father, son, and holy ghost's name. the Pharisee's could not crucify Christ without Pilate's Name on the permit. his name was the authority and I believe the commission of the Apostles was the same.

Here is the command that Jesus gave the Apostles in a private location he had chosen for them: Mt 28:19 Go (first to go) ye therefore, and teach (second to teach) all nations, baptizing them (third to baptize)in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (this is the Authority) they were to go in the name of God, they were to teach in the name of God and they were to baptize in the name of God. Of course Jesus expounded God to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but it is still means the name of God.

Verse 20 is the clarification or addition of information concerning the command of verse 19 (if my understanding of what follows a colon is correct and it is - see "colon" in sword searcher's unabridged Webster's dictionary meaning) 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. here the will also run into a problem because many will not teach converts to go and heal the sick cast out demons or go into the mission field without raising money (by the way I did that and it makes for a trial of faith as God approves your ministry)/


blessings bro and thanks for the answers that all can appreciate.