the Baptism

The Baptismal formula in the name of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost VS Jesus which both are fabrications

by investigatechristianity

Christians today perform the baptism in the name of three entities which is:

In the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit, well known as The Trinity.

 

Supposedly Jesus said to his disciples:

Matthew chapter 28 verse 19-20

KJV: “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 always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

BBE: “Go then, and make disciples of all the nations, giving them baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to keep all the rules which I have given you: and see, I am ever with you, even to the end of the world.

No doubt that the baptism given by Jesus to his disciples had to be performed in this way, in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of The Holy Spirit.

Any other form of baptism will be rejected for sure since Jesus himself ordered them to keep all the rules which he has given them.

So bear in mind we should expect from the disciples keeping the rules of Jesus to the letter!

Can you imagine the Disciples of Jesus themselves disobeying Jesus about what he told them to do or to say?

You will say: No way! Or Impossible!

Bear also in mind that nowhere else is mentioned the baptism in the name of the three entities. (We let the readers to verify and check by themselves)

Now let’s read the book of acts chapter 2 verse 37-38:

KJV: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

BBE: Now when these words came to their ears their hearts were troubled, and they said to Peter and the other Apostles, Brothers, what are we to do? And Peter said, Let your hearts be changed, every one of you, AND HAVE BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will have the Holy Spirit given to you.

Now notice there is no mentioning of the Father or Holy Ghost at all, Peter who is the only one whom JESUS WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH ON (Matthew 16 18) go against the teaching of Jesus and baptize people only in the name of Jesus?

But what is more amazing is that Paul a so called disciple of Jesus asks his companions, who are not the other disciples of Jesus or did even meet Jesus, a confirmation on how the baptism should proceed:

In the book of Acts chapter 19 verse 1-5:

KJV: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

BBE: And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having gone through the higher country, came to Ephesus, where there were certain disciples: And he said to them, Did you get the Holy Spirit when you had faith? And they said to him, No, we have had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit. And he said, What sort of baptism did you have? And they said, The baptism of John. And Paul said, John gave a baptism which goes with a change of heart, saying to the people that they were to have faith in him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus. And hearing this, they had baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Once again no mentioning of The Father or The Holy Ghost!

Notice how that goes against what Jesus taught to his disciples, when Paul asked his companions if they had any knowledge of The Holy Ghost, they said NO!

What happened to the “Formula” since the statement was made by Jesus?

How come the companions of Paul never heard of The Holy Ghost in the Baptismal Formula? In fact they didn’t have knowledge of The Holy Ghost at all!

You will often hear the Christians saying in order to be a believer, to understand the Bible, you have to know the Holy Ghost, it must dwell in you! speak through you! Yet the companions of Paul never heard of it!

How can Paul ask his companions about the Baptismal Formula who did not receive the Holy Ghost since they never heard of it when he himself received it and by it he wrote 14 books of the New Testament?

Besides if you pay attention carefully you will wonder how Paul of Tarsus the 12th so called disciple of Jesus could have followed ignorant  disciples of him.

The answer of the companions of Paul is more shocking, why?

Because they baptized in the same way John (The Baptist) did, and so did Jesus!

All baptized in the name of Jesus alone!

Now a contradiction arises with what Jesus taught to his disciples about the Baptismal Formula in Matthew Chapter 28 verse 19-20

In the name of the Father and in the name of the son and in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Actually Jesus had probably never spoken about being baptized in the name of the three entities or in his own name which will be viewed as a blasphemy from Islamic perspective and therefore being considered incorrect as well.

But we as muslims can not answer for the Christians, it’s up to them to solve this enigma, or I would say dilemma between which formula is correct?

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “the Baptism”

  1. Fraiser says:

    How is the priest a racist? Because he drove out a black woman who was disturbing the baptismal service? This doesn’t make him a racist. I find it ironic that you would call this priest a racist given the hatred that most muslims have for non-arabs. And given the hatred of Jews expressed by the Koran.

  2. Ibn Anwar says:

    Sir, you’ve posted your comment on the wrong article. Anyway, you’re referring to the video with the title “Racist Priest Slaps a Black Woman” which proceeds this article. Well, to me the person’s indeed racist because the black woman was attacked without provocation simply because she’s black and this is not something new in Christianity. Need I remind you of the apartheid of South Africa where ultra conservative Christians showed their true colours towards the coloured indigenous and immigrants? Or how about the days of Dr. Luther King and Malcolm X in America? Racism has always been a sickness in Christian communities throughout the ages stemming from the curse of Canaan among other reasons. You said “most Muslims hate muslims of non-arab background”..have you just come out of the jungle? Most Muslims aren’t arabs since arabs constitute less than 21% of the global Muslim population..to say that most Muslims hate non-arab Muslims is to say they hate themselves…there are more than 200 MILLION Muslims in Indonesia..they hate themselves because they’re not arabs? Are you seriously that stupid? It is a fact of history that Muslims are the least racist of all people, a direct contribution of Muhammad s.a.w. If you know the history of Islam you’d know that one of the closest companions of the Prophet s.a.w. was a pitch black person by the name Bilal bin Rabah, who was incidentally the first Muslim to give the “call to prayer”. Also, at the Hajatul Wada or Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet s.a.w. said, “No Arab is superior to a non-Arab and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab, no black is superior to a non-black and no non-black is superior to a black.” (Sahih Muslim). You also said that the Qur’an expresses hatred towards Jews…this is a very ironic claim since it is thanks to the Muslims that the Jews are still around to “hate” us and get “hate” from us haha….if it wasn’t for the Jihad of the early Muslims the Jews as admitted by they themselves(refer to ur history) they would have been wiped out by the Christian power of Constantinapole. Thanks also to the Muslims that the Jews from Spain after the fall of the Moors were given refuge in Ottoman controlled lands. Had we been commanded to hate the Jews as you claim, we could have easily wiped the Jews from the face of the earth. But you are referring to a verse in the Qur’an where it speaks of Jewish hatred towards Muslims..well first of all that verse spoeaks of their hatred towards us and not vice versa. Second of all, the reason for that revelation or asbab al-nuzul(an essential subject in the sciences of Qur’an) is that it is directed at thosae Jews who collaborated with the Quraisy pagans in their attempts at destroying Madinah, thus breaking the treaty they had with the denizens of Mecca(not just the Muslims but the Christians, fellow Jews and Magians). So really Fraiser…go learn some more. Thank you.

  3. Fraiser says:

    Well, it looks like I’ve got an angry Muslim on my hands with lots of insults to go along. I don’t mind disagreement, but insults are just rhetoric and do not an argument make. If you consider yourself so intelligent and consider yourself to be my instructor then you should know better than to use ad hominems such as implying that I’ve just come out of the jungle and asking me to answer whether I am stupid (this is a foolish question in its own right since a stupid person would be too stupid to know that they are stupid). Of course, the Qur’an says the much worse about me (98:6; 8:55; 7:176). It’s unfortunate that I have to waist this much in conversation to point out that you need to show respect to people who are taking your comments seriously and seeking to engage you.

    I apologize for commenting in the wrong thread, but since you didn’t relocate my comment and since you responded in the same thread, I’ll continue the conversation here as well.

    As to whether the priest is a racist, let’s follow your logic.

    1. “Well, to me the person’s indeed racist…”
    What someone is in your eyes is irrelevant for what he actually is. Suppose, I said “to me” he’s not a racist, you wouldn’t accept that now would you?

    2.” …because the black woman was attacked without provocation simply because she’s black…”

    How do you know this? All you’ve got is a 35 second clip. You don’t know the context, you don’t know that the priest did not have another reason. You are simply demonstrating your bias against Christians here. I am not Roman Catholic, so I have reason to defend the priest here, but you’ve accused someone of racism in order to defame Christians and you don’t know enough about the situation to say this. Let’s suppose I create a website called “Unveiling Islam” (though there is already a book by that title by two former Muslims [to speak of “unveiling” makes more sense when applied to Islam than it does Christianity, btw]) and I put up videos of the many acts of terrorism committed by Muslims around the world and used that to defame Islam, would that be fair? No, because I have taken a narrow slice of a large religion and used it to defame the whole of it. This would be unfair to your faith. I disagree with your faith on theological grounds and would disagree with it no less even if a Muslim never cut off anyone else’s head.

    3. The final reason you give for why to you this person is a racist is “this is not something new in Christianity.”

    What kind of argument is this for why this priest is a racist? The fact that people in the past were racist is not an argument that establishes this man as a racist. You would never accept (nor should you) an argument that a Muslim is racist for hitting a black woman because other Muslims have hit black women.

    Maybe the priest is a racist, but this cannot be determined by what we’ve seen in this video clip. Furthermore, suppose you make it your life’s mission to confirming that this priest is a racist and suppose it turns out to be true, how does this “unveil christianity”? Again, this is mere ad hominem. Christians and Muslims could go back and forth putting up clips of people doing misdeeds in the name of their religion and it wouldn’t serve as a valid argument against either religion. Besides, I would think that you wouldn’t want to go down this road, because it is a losing battle for you. Anyone can post videos of Muslims doing things that are much more horrifying than slapping a black woman. I’m sure you’re aware that Islam does not have a very positive reputation outside of Islamic countries (if you are not aware of this, don’t worry, I won’t be so asinine as to ask you if you’ve just come out of the jungle).

    You need to own up to the fact that you’ve made accusations that you have not substantiated. You’re discrediting yourself when you make such empty arguments.

    Your accusations that Christianity is racist is based on a gross misunderstanding of the history of Christianity. I don’t deny that Christians or people who claimed to be Christians have done racist things, but it does not establish a problem with Christianity itself. In fact, Christian doctrine has been a reason for racial reconciliation in many cases. Martin Luther King, Jr. for example, did not oppose racism by rejecting Christianity, he called racist Christians to be true to the doctrine they confess such as that all men are made in the image of God. He opposed racism WITH Christianity not by abandoning it. The same can be said of William Wilberforce in England whose influence led Parliament to abolish slavery in England. Anti-racism can also be found in Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Furthermore, the creation of a Jewish state garnered enormous support from the Christian community. There are many Christians who consider Israel God’s chosen people and believe that whoever curses Israel will be cursed by God, and whoever blesses Israel will be blessed by God (Gen 12:3).

    Where do you account for any of this in your review of Christianity and race? It is clear that you are unfairly biased against Christianity.

    The Qur’an verse which you attempt to explain is not one that I have in mind. Here are a few examples of the dehumanizing hatred that the Qur’an expresses toward Jews:

    Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path” (5:60)!

    According to the Hadith, one of the last things Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians” (Bukhari 8:427).

    You wrote: “Had we been commanded to hate the Jews as you claim, we could have easily wiped the Jews from the face of the earth.”

    You have been commanded by the Qur’an to do violence against Jews: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

    “O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (9:123).

    “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know” (8:60).

    It’s not Christians that Jews have to fear doing violence to them. It’s not Christians that have sworn to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. Many Muslims on the other hand have sworn to do so.

    With friends like Muslims, Jews don’t need enemies.

    Now again, I’m not saying that Islam is “unveiled” because of this violence, only that you can’t revise history to say that Christian history is full of racism and that Muslims are the least racist of all people.

    If Muslims are so non-racist why then do so many swear to destroy Israel and why is there so much Muslim violence against Israel?

    To help you answer this question, visit: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

  4. Ibn Anwar says:

    My response to the above comments are here
    http://unveilingchristianity.w.....ibn-anwar/

Leave a Reply