/lit/ - Literature

>>19418771
>I was reading through the Book of Acts and thought it was hilarious how it knows nothing of Trinitarian baptism. Acts 2:38: "Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

>Whoops! That's not In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! I guess all those people the apostles baptized are going to hell!

>Please note: I don't give a shit how you attempt to dodge what the text plainly says by "harmonizing" it with other texts. According to Acts, the apostles baptized without the Trinitarian formula and that's literally what the text says, period.

>>19418771
bait

>>19418804
please explain how the words of acts 2.38 have anything to do with trinitarian baptism that is supposedly mandatory for salvation. please explain how the words necessary for salvific baptism that aren't there are somehow ok.

Dumb thread. Here's a beautiful icon to counteract your ugliness.

>>19418804
>>19418832
>>19418785
we're now 3 posts in with copers literally so befuddled and enraged that they can't even pretend to make an argument. because there is none. the NT itself disproves any religion that claims trinitarian baptism is necessary for salvation.

3 posts. let's see how many more we can get.

>>19418837
not your personal priest.

If you don't believe in the Trinity then you aren't a Christian.

God loves you.

>>19418804
To be fair, it doesn't feel like bait with how retarded a lot of atheist "biblical criticism" that I've been seeing get a new wave over the last few months.

>>19418848
>>19418861
2 more for the pile. reminder that this shuts down every braindead christian immediately. there is literally no recovery from acts 2.38. it completely dismantles orthodoxy/catholicism in particular because within their systems this passage literally describes the apostles sending people to hell.

>>19418864
another one.

>>19418866
how critical do you consider "looking at what the words say" to be? what level of cognitive dissonance are you on to believe that presenting the words of the bible and acknowledging what they say constitutes an attack on your faith?

fucking lol

>>19418771
>The church can't modify its rites because...IT JUST CAN'T OK!
The trinitarian baptism more fully aligns the catechumen with the reality of the Trinity which is foundational to Christian faith. Why do Protestants ignore the historical and contemporary Holy Spirit as if it ceased to operate the moment the Bible was published?

>>19418875
so the apostles disagreed with the catholic church? is that what you're saying?

>>19418875
>foundational to Christian faith
weird you use that term when the apostles disagreed. i'm sure your perversion of their rites are more informed. i mean it's not like they knew jesus or anything

>>19418771
>That's not In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
No different to just being in the name of Jesus, yes? Unless you consider Jesus entirely separate to the Holy Spirit and the Father.

>>19418878
Such a bad faith argument. Right in line with your specious claims and nasty snarling at Christians. Go back to the pit.

>>19418889
This ^ destroys the OP.

>>19418891
not an argument, more seethe and cope from you. next.

>>19418889
does the catholic church agree with this statement or are you being a heretic? they definitely do NOT agree with you on this point. you can't change the trinitarian formula in any sense, period.

>>19418899
except it doesn't according to major christian denominations like catholicism and orthodoxy. please show me where they say you can change the words.

>>19418899
>>19418889
>retarded larpers are actually so uninformed they are massive heretics who believe the Trinitarian Formula isn't crucial to baptism.
Congrats you've excommunicated yourself.

>>19418891
if you can't form a rejoinder just say so, anon. you're not acting very christian right now. christ wouldn't want you judging others because you can't form a coherent thought. that sort of malice is pure evil.

>>19418875
The passage from Acts is just saying "in the name of Jesus" to describe how the apostles were continuing Jesus' mission on an ecclesiastical level. Evidence of "trinitarian" baptism is evident from the Didache which goes back to about the same time as Acts anyway.
>Furthermore, the correspondence of the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the Didache and Matthew (Did. 7 and Matt 28:19) as well as the similar shape of the Lord's Prayer (Did. 8 and Matt 6:5–13) appear to reflect the use of similar oral traditions. Finally, both the community of the Didache (Did. 11–13) and Matthew (Matt 7:15–23; 10:5–15, 40–42; 24:11,24) were visited by itinerant apostles and prophets, some of whom were heterodox.

Articulating the metaphysical particularities of the sacraments wasn't really what Acts was trying to do in that passage.

>>19418923
Are you saying Acts was lying about what the apostles said? I don't care what other texts say. Do you consider Acts to be reliable or is it a bunch of lies?

ALERT FOR ANY UNSUSPECTING ANONS ENTERING THE THREAD:
OP is either a demon or possessed by one and he is not seeking a theological discussion in good faith. He is merely attempting to aggravate Christians and get (you)'s. DO NOT ARGUE WITH OP. His claims have already been adequately refuted. Engaging with him simply fuels his degenerate behavior.

>>19418923
>passage from Acts is just saying "in the name of Jesus" to describe how the apostles blah blah blah
Nope. It is quoting what Peter said. What Peter said was, specifically, that he baptizes people in the name of Jesus. Not the trinity. Jesus. It wasn't "trying to do" anything. That is your mental gymnastics. The passage is "trying to" communicate what Peter said. It's just that what he said doesn't align with your wrong religion.

>>19418938
>le schizophrenic face.

>>19418938
>christian fragility
wtf the libs were right

>>19418875
>The church can't modify its rites because...IT JUST CAN'T OK!
To be fair you are sorta implying that the Book of Acts was not Inspired.

I can't believe people care about this. Of what consequence is it whether God is a trinity or not when you have nothing to show for God in the first place except preserved blogposts from Roman Syria?

>>19418960
Reality just feels like its sentient so I have to go and see what people have said about this subject

>>19418923
>citing uninspired apocrypha to "correct" the inspired book of acts
heresy

>>19418959
not just implying, he outright said that further developments needed to "correct" the wrong statement in acts. and then he claims that he is protecting the "apostolic deposit" by uhh... changing what the apostles said right after jesus died?

bros... is there seriously not ONE actual rebuttal in the entire thread? wtf christ bros... did we lose this one for good?

>>19418928
>“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"
This isn't what Peter is saying in the middle of the fucking baptism ritual; it's just an address to people who knew about Jesus and the Apostles' desire to continue his work.

>>19418967
The Didache isn't divinely inspired but I wouldn't call it "apocrypha" on the same level as shit like Gospel of Thomas. Like how just because Catholics don't consider the Catechism "inspired" like the Bible doesn't mean they don't trust it.

>>19419009
How do you know what is or isn't divinely inspired?

>>19419009
>This isn't what Peter is saying in the middle of the fucking baptism ritual; it's just an address to people who knew about Jesus and the Apostles' desire to continue his work.
Is that really the explanation you're going with? You haven't read Acts then. I was kinda waiting for this. Here are several other passages I want you to explain then:

Acts 8.16
Acts 10.48
Acts 19.5
Acts 22.16

Every one of these passages clearly indicates that the formula for baptism was "Jesus" and not the Trinity. And in conjunction with this direct quote from Peter, there is literally no way to construe what he is saying as anything other than the words in which he will baptize a person. Because that is WHAT HE IS SAYING.

He is saying, word for word, his intention to baptize people in the name of Jesus. That's what all these other passages in Acts say as well. In all the discussion of baptism and examples of it, Luke knows NOTHING of baptism using a Trinitarian formula.

I lost my post. I wanted to say that interconfessional bickering is nauseating and I wonder if Christ would approve of all this anal retentiveness. He didn't seem to be a fan of rule-lawyering although he did cite the letter of the Scriptures.
Sometimes I think the wisest thing to do would be to join the physically nearest church, then if that church celebrates Gay Pride instead of Christianity, then leave for the next physically closest church.

>>19418891
Wow, man you were btfo hard. I've never actually seen someone actually telegraph the fact that they've lost an argument online like this. Usually there's some face saving but you just totally ragequit and gave up.

>>19419009
>The Didache isn't divinely inspired but I wouldn't call it "apocrypha" on the same level as shit like Gospel of Thomas. Like how just because Catholics don't consider the Catechism "inspired" like the Bible doesn't mean they don't trust it.
i hope you're not a catholic because if so you've just admitted to not understanding even the most basic premise of magisterial authority. holy shit where do you retards find this site? go larp somewhere else, faggot.

>>19419113
>scriptorial authority = magisterial authority
magisterial authority claims infallibility only in the interpretation of scripture, theological doctrine and moral law.

>>19419204

I don't care.

Scriptorial isn't a word.

Catholicism is for retarded people.

" And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 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." Matt 28:18-20

>>19419339
Welp someone's lying then! Did Acts or Matthew lie about the words? Or do the words not matter? Bear in mind, that if you say the words of baptism don't matter you are now a heretic according to Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestants. Some might even call you no longer Christian.

>>19418848
you posting this shitty art with every post is really getting dangerously close to avatarfagging. mods are gonna need to step in soon

:)

>>19419304
>resorts to insults and can't even contain his reddit spacing
is this what getting btfo looks like?

>>19419448
>he fell for my reddit spacing bait
interesting, exactly as i predicted. literally a puppet on a string...

>>19419368
The passages are perfectly consistent. Somebody says, "I had a burger, a coke, and fries" and when they are asked a second time they say, "I had a burger". The statements don't contradict: one just has more information than the other. You are trying to prove what was NOT SAID which is impossible, unless you find a statement that specifically excludes what was said. You need to show a verse that says, "We baptized in the name of the Lord, and we did NOT baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" but there is no such verse. Conclusion: You are a hell bound idiot and need to repent before it is too late.

>>19419413
>you posting this shitty art with every post is really getting dangerously close to avatarfagging. mods are gonna need to step in soon
I have never had a more fitting use for this image

>>19419464
That's not how logic or rhetoric works at all. You are an actual retarded person.

>>19419471
You will never have a family. Ever.

>>19419464
>You need to show a verse that says, "We baptized in the name of the Lord, and we did NOT baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" but there is no such verse.
so you're denying the inspiration of scripture, interesting. there's no verse that says you can't masturbate or abort babies either btw. by your logic that's ok then.

>>19418771
This is the dumbest fedora-tipped attempt at a gotcha I've seen in a long time. You write like an angry redditor. The Lord is my shepherd.

>>19418866
Not OP here, just have a question. Is there any good non-atheist biblical criticism? Basically just biblical criticism from a Christian perspective or purely from a historical perspective.

>>19419480
remarkably shitty art. do catholics really?

>>19419484
It's not sideways irl

>>19419464
so the holy spirit was just being lazy about writing scripture that day? applying this sort of grammatical analysis to scripture would completely disintegrate the ability to derive any meaning from it at all, let alone your post. in fact, i can't even read your post anymore because it says infinite things because you didn't specify all the things you didn't mean to say.

nice postmodernist take, jesus would be proud

>>19419464
>Somebody says, "I had a burger, a coke, and fries" and when they are asked a second time they say, "I had a burger".
in the entirety of Luke Acts there is never once a reference to or even awareness of the existence of Trinitarian baptism so your faggot analogy falls apart instantly.

>>19418922
>not acting very christian
You are literally possessed by a demon of schism. Schism is a sin against charity, there exists no proof good enough for you

>>19419511
maybe read the bible and find out what "judge not" means. you're on the fast track to hell, sinner.

>>19419464
Do you actually think this is a logically rigorous post? I'm genuinely curious what is your level of education? Don't lie, this is anonymous. I'm going to guess high school junior, but you could be a poorly performing community college student too.

>>19419517
This is exactly what I mean, you will contort yourself whichever way you have to to remain in schism. There literally is no argument good enough because you are not engaging in argumentation, you simply hate peace and love strife. You've made up your mind of whatever your point is before you ever found that verse, did you not?

What you want is to leave the Church, because the devil has poisoned your mind against it. You would have taken any other verse, any other excuse - and you know it. Today it's a 'Sola Scriptura' episode, tomorrow it will be whatever else. And by the way Jesus Christ didn't leave us a freaking Bible, he left us a Church i.e our saints that we are supposed to emulate.

>>19419536
haha didn't read, you sound mentally ill.

>>19419536
>You secretly know you are wrong but are afraid to admit it
This is gaslighting, a sociopath technique.

>>19419536
>he left us a Church
were the apostles part of the church? because they must be part of a separate church given they use a different formula for baptism. you believe people who aren't baptized with the trinitarian formula go to hell, and the apostles didn't use it. so you're part of a false church with no continuity from the apostles. repent.

>>19419536
actual cult victim. you need deprogramming, not even your own priests think like this, and they would refer you to counseling if they heard you talking like this. what's hilarious is that you did this to yourself because the catholic church is well beyond this nutjob talk.

>>19419544
>>19419545
>>19419548
>>19419556
Note how all the other schismatics recoil when you name them - as if to say 'I've been found out'

>>19419556
honestly this. i've never been on the "catholic church is a cult" bandwagon, but that post sent shivers down my spine.
>What you want is to leave the Church, because the devil has poisoned your mind against it.
Holy fucking shit...

>>19419595
reddit moment

>>19419606
I just want to be clear, do ALL the catholic posters think like this? Does this shit seem normal to you? I just want to know before I form an extremely negative permanent impression here.

>>19419613
"Demon" means a lot of things to Christians. In the sense the above poster uses it, he doesn't mean an evil spirit has stolen OP's mind and he's lost his free will. What he's referring to is compulsive sinful behavior that resists attempts to reveal it's sinful nature. But he's wrong in saying the teaching of saints are more authoritative than the bible.

>>19418938
You do realize that not only OP is demonic but you yourself are hand in hand demonically opressed to even bare witness to this thread? Dont you suspect there is a devil cackling in your wake egging you to go on 4chan rather then do other things? Don't I realize that I am subject to the exact same thing? That even as I don't believe in Popery or Earthen religion I am shackled to the delusions repetition ingrained in my habitual shit. This fucking appeal to despondent lethargic vitriolic catatonic piss which is circulated in a font of isolated mania and printed on digital text? And that the only hope is that my mental pathways arent the modern paralleled reflection of Demonic superstition is that Demons do not attack the damned for their work is done and I am damned so far past perdition that even the most attentive servant of hell would not bother giving me one more iota of incompassion?

>>19419668
>In the sense the above poster uses it, he doesn't mean an evil spirit has stolen OP's mind and he's lost his free will.
uh yeah i'm not convinced of that.

>Note how all the other schismatics recoil when you name them - as if to say 'I've been found out'

He thinks posters in this thread who aren't catholic or whatever are actually called satan. i'm pretty sure he literally believes posters that aren't part of his cult are demonically possessed.

>>19419613
whoever's behind these posts >>19418938 >>19419536 is acting overemotional and kinda weird but the atheists itt aren't arguing in good faith either tbqh

>catholic posters are actually defending the psychotic
welp that settles it. catholicism is literally unironically a mindfuck cult. i will make sure to keep my family away from it. i was considering it, but this is too fucking creepy. i'll go to to the presbyterian church down the street instead. they have good bible study potlucks, and the pastor has 8 kids so i know he isn't a homo raper.

>>19419697
BASED

I'm a Reformed poster who always deals with catholic retards on this board. Welcome to the club that the rest of the world is joining :)

>>19419697
This whole thread has just been you being a giant insufferable sperg so please, yes, go bother protestants instead.

>>19418771
Jesus is God.
When Peter says in the name of Jesus Christ He is still saying God.
It's unknown exactly what Peter is thinking when he answers the people. It could possibly because he wanted to emphasise Jesus Christ as at the time most of the Jews knew God but did not know Christ as God (or really knew who Christ and what He did).
It's safe to say that when they were Baptised though they were Baptised in the name of the Trinity and not just Jesus.

>>19419709
>>19419718
Dilate

>>19419718
anon none of the retards in here actually want to hear any sound arguments, take a look at the thread

Number of refutations of OP so far: 0

>>19419718
>When Peter says in the name of Jesus Christ He is still saying God.
Not according to Catholic dogma about baptism. That is literal heresy to say that the Trinitarian formula can be fudged, and they do not consider some denominations Christian at all because of it.

>It's safe to say that when they were Baptised though they were Baptised in the name of the Trinity and not just Jesus.
Not according to anything in Luke Acts in any place in any sense. I provided at least 5 places where he says baptisms are done in the name of the Lord Jesus specifically, including quotes of people talking. Your only option is to say Luke was a liar or a heretic and the books aren't faithful witnesses of the early church. Is that it?

>>19419595
What do you think the word "church" means? Or "religion"? Or "catholic"? Or "orthodox"? I suppose there is plenty of baggage so it makes sense you wouldn't understand. "Ecclesia" means "the meeting place". "Religion" literally means "the habit of reconnecting" from latin "religio" as in "to draw again a line [that connects us]". "Catholic" means "for everybody" in greek. "Orthodox" means "[with] a correct model/theory" [lit. ortho/correct + doxia/informed opinion that explains reality].

There is a reason why there exists only one orthodox catholic church and one religion. Imagine an assembly that is absolutely determined to find the Truth in philosophy. Now throughout the centuries, this general assembly of which all humans are born into and must attend by virtue of being a part of it - imagine that this group with a stated goal of discussing metaphysics will weigh different theories, opinions and possibilities for the Truth in all fields of life. With time it will develop a particular, truthful world-view. Now certain worldviews are more true than others, and only one can be correct. So with time this assembly decides on certain metaphysical opinions and dogmas - atheism is self-refuting, so we can't accept that. Spiritualism is baseless and superstitious, so that has to go. Absolute materialism is also insane, since there are actual invisible phenomena that happen and are recorded. Pantheism has flaws, etc etc.

Now imagine that this universal assembly of truthseekers one day happens upon the actual incarnation of Truth, walking upon the Earth, and he actually *gives* a glimpse into the metaphysical truth. That assembly from now on would be expected, if truly the individual in question was the Truth made flesh, to incorporate everything He said into their system. As a matter of fact, you'd expect this organization to throw out literally everything that does not agree with this individual.

This is literally what the church is. Now, the historical truth is that this did not happen in that particular order, rather, this organization that is an Universal Assembly of Truthseekers With The Correct Opinion™ was created *after* the historical event of this incarnation. But do you understand how, if the claim of incarnation is true, and the claims of the organization are true, it would make sense, this type of thinking that is?

The organization is *still* the Truthseekers Assembly, in theory, it is still seeking, and you are invited to participate and help build its model. What you can't do is ever leave the Truthseekers Assembly, that is schism, since you'd be showing yourself to be so obsessed with your own ideas that you'd rather leave the public assembly of discussion just because it might prove you to be wrong

>>19419734
didn't read, fuck off schizo

>>19419734
Does Orthodoxy allow for baptisms that don't use the Trinitarian formula? Because if they do not, your religion is not the same one that the apostles belonged to, so all that horseshit means nothing, and you're the schismatic.

>>19419728
OP is being autistically pedantic whenever anyone is trying to explain this shit to him, compounded with the fact that most of the posters in the thread at this point feel like either trolls or literal autists who just want to sperg about Catholicism being right/wrong.

>>19419668
its worse then that
its medieval phycology basically. You have the heavenly, the neutral and the demonic types of thoughts. Since OP is saying something that Anon sees as wrong it is demonic and surmises that OP 's nuetral thoughts are being maneuvered by clever mechanical cues towards a certian demonic disposition. Demons cannot read minds but they can read about everything else. Demons being fallen angels they are instantaneous and a hoel slew of other advantages. Since I have no authority to post this and am probably "an enemy of the church" it could be concluded that I am demonically acting. Now i was lying for this paragraph but atleast that makes the former sentence stand :tf:

>>19419741
It's not pedantic to take the words of the text at face value for what they actually say. I provided ample evidence that Luke documents the apostles baptizing using a nontrinitarian formula and you can't get a grip.

Saying "but he really meant the trinity" isn't an argument and it's not even a good cope. If he mentioned the trinitarian formula or the trinity even ONCE that would be one thing, but across 2 books he does not. So what is the argument other than "YEAH BUT OBVIOUSLY WHEN HE SAYS THOSE WORDS YOU CANT REALLY BELIEVE HE MEANT THE WORDS HE SAID COME ON"

>>19419752
>medieval catholics had to invent an entire metaphysics to elaborately say "anything i don't like is bad"
But fucking why though? And what strata of inceldom allows a 2021 teen to get sucked into that kind of thought? How outrageously lonely is he??

>>19419740
No, it does not 'mean nothing', it means that you are allowed to point out any flaws in reasoning of the Universal Truthseekers Assembly, but WITHIN the organization. Yet you seem to think you found a flaw in that reasoning and decide that therefore this Assembly is evil and schismatic and terrible and you need to LEAVE urgently, which sounds like something that the invisible force of evil that wants to make individuals leave the association would want you to do. Bring your points to a debate within the church. Remain in the church. If you truly are right, fuck they might even make you a doctor of the church, why not even pope. You can truly revolutionize it. See if you were to find proof beyond reasonable doubt that Revelation itself was counterfeited, the Church itself would be forced to drop Revelation altogether, wouldn't it? Stay in the Church then.

>>19419782
>Universal Truthseekers Assembly
Bro I'm Catholic and I have no idea what the FUCK you're talking about.

>>19419782
the church of the apostles and Jesus did not baptize using a trinitarian formula. your church says that baptisms that do not follow the trinitarian formula are not valid and efficacious and so that person goes to hell. therefore, your churches are not the same church. by your own churches dogmas, the apostles were damning people to hell all through acts.

sorry to break it to you. you need to read your own posts and join the church of christ.

>>19419770
To pump you up more I can point out that loneliness and isolation are paragon virtues among anyone trying to imitate extreme monastic practices. Anyone who obtains the most perfected state of this "invisibility" wont be much of a discussion thought because you cannot be sure they even exist at that point. The only scenario where a hermit would need to re-enter society is if they have grown despondent or cold hearted to which they are supposed to observe human misery and suffering but I seriously doubt anyone merely mimicking a monastic and not in an order will follow through with this short of pure circumstance. Then again virtue itself can be chalked down all to circumstance so I wouldn't get to flustered about it

>>19419793
Refer to
>>19419734

>thread is literally just two unmedicated schizos replying to each other over and over

>>19419804
i made this post btw

Look at all that one true church JP2 is kissing!

>>19418928
Acts is reliable but Jesus Christ explicitly says that the formula for Baptism is to be baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the absence of any directly contradictory statements in Acts I think it's reasonable to assume that statements about Baptism in Acts conform to the formula which Jesus Christ handed down to the Apostles. Is there any good reason to believe the Apostles would have ignored Christ, or chosen to disobey Him?

>>19419804
is this cope for never being able to formulate a response to my OP?

>>19418942
>What Peter said was, specifically, that he baptizes people in the name of Jesus. Not the trinity.
Jesus is the Son of the Trinity. This is as silly as saying that if someone says you should get Baptised then they must just mean dunking you in water without naming God at all. It's implied. Why would Peter, chief of the Apostles directly disobey Christs command? It makes zero sense.

>>19419824
>Is there any good reason to believe the Apostles would have ignored Christ, or chosen to disobey Him?
Yes, the Book of Acts. Matthew and Luke weren't written by the same person, obviously you retard. The fact that they are contradictory isn't my problem. It's yours. If Trinitarian baptism were the universal practice of the church and not using it made it a false baptism, and if Luke knew any of the apostles or people related to them or ANYONE AT ALL, then he probably would have maybe mentioned it because it's the difference between hell or not.

He is very clear about the formula he knows the apostles used for baptism.

>>19419832
You don't get to fudge the words when the church says that the words are the difference between hell and not. Your hypothetical questions are your problem not mine.

>>19419838
>Yes, the Book of Acts. Matthew and Luke weren't written by the same person, obviously you retard.
They were all inspired by God and form part of the same corpus of work. There is no reason to believe that Acts should be interpreted in a way contradictory to the other books of the Bible. If Jesus Christ gave a specific Baptismal formula in Matthew then we know that formula was adhered to in Acts even if it's never explicitly stated.

>>19418771
>Peter replied
Literally who. Not Jesus. Doesn't count.

>>19419845
>magic makes it real!
Yeah good one. The issue isn't whether it's "explicitly stated" the issue is that something contradictory and specific IS stated. It doesn't say "they were baptized." It says they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This is repeated over ten times in Acts and with the exact same specificity as the Trinitarian formula in Matthew. The degree of specificity is the same. Both say "baptize in the name of X".

Paul also uses Luke's formulas in his letters as well.

>>19418923
/thread

>>19419851
>If I read scripture as an atheist with a hermenutic that says each book was written apart from and can be interpreted independently of the other books of scripture it doesn't make sense! Checkmate Christians!
Yeah no shit. Not sure what your point is. Read it with atheistic assumptions and reach atheistic conclusions, shocking.

>the issue is that something contradictory and specific IS stated
Acts never says people shouldn't be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Again your assertion is the same as claiming that any Christian who says someone should "get baptized" without explicitly saying "get Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" must mean they don't believe in the Trinity. Which is obviously false. Peter uses Jesus a shorthand for the Trinity since the fullness of the Father dwells within the Son such as the two are one and the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son

>The degree of specificity is the same. Both say "baptize in the name of X".
No, you're making the claim that Peter would've directly contradicted Jesus, there is no reason to believe this unless you're an atheist.

>>19418771
>NOOOOOOO YOU ARE NOT USING THE MAGICAL FORMULA CORRECTLY, HOW WILL YOU FORCE GOD TO SAVE THESE PEOPLE
You can't do magic and you can't force miracles. Only God can clean the soul with baptism, what, do you think you can force his hand by saying the magic spell? If you did not know the formula and were not a priest but needed urgently to baptize a dying infant, do you think God would condemn the infant to Hell? Would God be powerless to save it just because you did not abide by some technicality? And can God not save even the unbaptized?
Now Christ says in the book you baptize in the name of the three, so you baptize in the name of the three. Simple as.

>>19419879
>Peter uses Jesus a shorthand for the Trinity since the fullness of the Father dwells within the Son such as the two are one and the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son
which, per catholic dogma, he is not allowed to do and places him outside of the church. learn your own religion.

the rest of your post is very sad. you've conceded that unless everyone assumes your first principles a priori your position not only doesn't make sense, but it is impossible to arrive at your conclusion. i accept your concession. you have a nonsensical belief unless you first decide that flat contradictions are reconcilable by ignoring the words, implicitly admitting they are lies... but also true???

>>19419886
none of the bullshit you posted is in accord with catholic dogma. if you disagree show me where it says that. show me what the catholic church says about nontrinitarian baptism.

>>19419879
>the fullness of the Father dwells within the Son
this is heresy. literal defined heresy.

>>19419888
>which, per catholic dogma, he is not allowed to do
What? Tell people to be baptized into the name of Jesus? Pretty sure we can do that. It's when the baptism is actually performed that you need to use the formula.

>>19419898
why are you still trying to argue with me when you already conceded? back the fuck off. go suck a priest's cock you faggot. take back your concession and apologize to me if you want me to engage further.

>>19419896
Nope. Not only is is scriptural it's completely Orthodox

>Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

>Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

and in Colossians

>For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

>>19419904
Damn you got salty as hell once you got dunked on and your dumb argument was dismantled. The Demon influencing you is very unhappy you're bad at your work

>>19419915
stop samefagging, savonarola

LITERALLY POSSESSED. GET HELP

>>19418771
Context:

>When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

>Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.

Notice that he isn't reciting a formula here, nor is he directly performing the act of baptism. Instead, he's issuing a call to action. "in the name of Jesus" is used here as a prepositional phrase, and the meaning of this phrase has remained unchanged for two thousand years ("for Jesus' sake" + "with Jesus' authority"). This prepositional phrase modifies the verbs "Repent and be baptized". Again, it's not a formula; he's telling a crowd, "Get baptized for Jesus' sake and with his authority for the sake of forgiveness." The narrative then proceeds:

>With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

See? He isn't baptizing them with the aforementioned words; he was convincing them to get baptized.

The text is plain, and you've plainly misunderstood it.

>>19420079
>See? He isn't baptizing them with the aforementioned words; he was convincing them to get baptized.
this analogy or whatever you're proposing doesn't even kind of make sense. if you're suggesting they show parallel construction i would love to see your work because your post reads like word salad.

>>19420096
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I didn't offer an analogy, nor was I suggesting any sort of parallel construction present in the text.

Peter was speaking to a crowd. He was trying to convince them to repent and get baptized. He said, "In the name of Jesus, repent and get baptized." This is not the baptismal formula. This is a plea for people to get baptized for Jesus' sake. The Bible mentions that he said "many other words"; he's making a case for baptism. Again, this is not the baptismal formula itself. Finally, some people are convinced. The text says they were baptized, but it makes no mention of the baptismal formula. You've falsely equated Peter's rhetorical device - "In the name of Jesus, repent and get baptized!" - with the baptismal formula. There's no conflict between Peter's plea and the Trinitarian formula in baptism, because they are distinct from each other.

>>19419595
>>19419556
>>19419544
Watch the Americans recoil

>>19419752
>>19419770
Make an actual argument that justifies why medieval psychology is bad without using incel, have sex, tranny, or any other snarl word.

>>19418771
For starters, all of the books in the bible didn't come in the order you see them today. They were assembled in such a way that is more coherent for the simplicity of mankind. Excluding the Apocrypha which was deemed uninspired by early church scholars, if you have to guess about things which is common in the Apocrypha it's likely not inspired at all.

Water baptism is a sign and symbolic, unless you're filthy it won't do much other than clean you off unless the water is of questionable purity itself. It's an outward expression of an inward confession.

Finally, a triune God (Father, Son(Jesus),Holy Spirit) is what the baptism is all about and receiving that ascension upon your mortal soul. It doesn't matter which one you specifically pick, all three are the same in one. It's beyond the understanding of men, and yet wise men still seek Him.

OP, if you haven't noticed it's been about 2,000 years and this world is still actively trying to destroy something very specific. Why is that? Why bother with something that doesn't exist?

Because it does exist for you and it's enough to scrape your conscience moving you to come here and attack that which you do not understand.

I do realize that this is a bait thread but nonetheless there is something even more true than rationalist thinking and logic. Logic is just the closest we can get. You need as much faith as you do in all of the theories and facts which will never be true. Cognitive relativism - if there is truth out there, we're never going to find it. It's because truth does not change or evolve, it's well preserved unchanging in the concept of time.

>>19418771
dont care, plus you are a heretic. neck yourself.

>>19421649
not an argument

>>19421562
not an argument

>>19420245
not an argument, in this case because i provided numerous other passages in acts using the same formula for you to address. you didn't address them because lets be honest you've never read acts in the first place. you're just responding out of some knee jerk impulse but you don't even know what i'm talking about.

A whole bait thread of redditors failing to see the diversity of opinion within the church and pearl-clutching at the term 'demonic'

>>19421725
>not an argument, in this case because i provided numerous other passages in acts using the same formula for you to address.
Everything I've written applies equally to the verses you mentioned previously. The expression "in the name of the Lord" or "in Jesus' name" is a prepositional phrase acting as a complement to the verb "baptize," which urges us to do something for Christ's sake; it's not used in any of those verses as a formula which must be followed verbatim. It's basic grammar, I'm afraid, and your pride is preventing you from understanding what you're reading.

The only requirement for salvation is faith on Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for humanity, anything else is a bonus but not required.

>>19418771
What is Matthew 28:19

>>19419479
>so you're denying the inspiration of Scripture
not him, but how?
>no verse that says you can't masturbate
there are verses against lust, so if you can coom without sexual stimulation have fun
>can't abort babies
not even gonna go for this bait

>>19419476
>you won't get access to holes, ever
way to argue like a hole, hole