Baptism in Jesus Name

Dear opponent, I will attempt to present you with some more information regarding the four passages in Acts, the Collosians, and Matthew. As I have already stated, and as you have not yet properly dismissed, the passages mentioned, because they have been looked at out of context, are neither contradictory, nor are they logically valid reasons to assume that your interpretation of the Word of God is correct. If we examine Col 2:9 again, I will restate, that is this instance, Paul is referring to the Jews, explaining two things: the first point being that Jesus is indeed God incarnate, that Jesus is the Shekinah. The second issue refers to initiation into the Christian faith. Now, as of this point in history, we hear and see in scripture, that there are multiple ritual washings that take place in the Jewish tradition. Jesus, as well as the Pharisees, practiced these washings. The link I provided earlier for you explained that the entrance into the Jewish faith required, not one, but three separate ceremonies: circumcision, ritual washing, and sacrifice (the presentation in the temples after the eight day of birth). Paul is using this passage to dually explain that because the Shekinah (Hebrew word for God in dwelling) had become incarnate and had experienced these rituals, they no longer had to perform them, only be baptized in the name (in/ by the authority) of Jesus Christ. What does this mean though? It means, not that they would be baptized specifically in "the name of Jesus Christ," but that they would be baptized into the Faith that comes from and belongs to Christ. If we refer to an earlier document of the early Christian church that predates the bible, the Didache, we see very clearly that the Early Christians, through the instruction of the Apostles, baptized, "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... - all of these texts were written around the year 100AD. As for the passages in Acts, all of them, again I hold to the fact that there was a necessary distinction required in the type of baptism received by persons. In Matthew 19:3 Paul asked some persons, "By which baptism were you baptized?" they respond with, "John's Baptism." Paul then explains the difference between the two, John's baptism being of strictly repentance, the Baptism of Jesus, being one of not only remission of sin, but a full participation in the life of the Trinity. Again, I say, Peter, nor Paul, nor any of the Apostles would have, after being taught by the authority of Christ for all those years, dared assume a different or "better" stance that that of Christ. Jesus commands, "Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," so that, as you mentioned, we can be Baptized into the Gospel (good news), being that there is a God, who has come to dwell among us, not just as one Divine Person, but as three, and to share in the life of the Trinity, we do Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So then, why does baptizing with water, and only the name of Jesus, not fulfill the Great Commission? To state this the best that I can: Why, after following Christ, and being obedient to even going to catch a fish which had a coin in its mouth to pay temple tax (Mt 17:27), would Peter then decide, after receiving the Holy Spirit, who would "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," (Jn 14:26 KJV), to baptize in the name of Jesus, when Christ, God incarnate, had specifically mentioned to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Now, to recall something you had said, "why would Jesus even say father, son, and holy spirit?" From the passage of Mt 17:27 alone, we can clearly see that Christ says nothing he does not mean, that he speaks only truth, and that His words are to be obeyed. How do we know this, because Jesus is the Word of God Incarnate, and God's word is truth, even though it may not make sense. For example: Joshua was told to walk around a city wall for seven days so the wall would collapse and they could conquer. Gideon was told to send away all but 300 men to fight an army with, Moses was told to do all those amazing things with his staff, and they happened, because these men followed the words of God. It is also important to note that, whatever the Apostles have done, Jesus did first. In Mk 2:11, Jesus commands a paralytic to rise and walk. In Acts 3:6, Peter heals a lame man by saying, "in the Name of Jesus Christ, walk!" There are other instances of this healing happening. With these alone I can understand how one might interpret that to Baptize in the Name of Jesus is the "more proper" way. The fact is though, we do not rely on Scripture alone, if we did, we would still end up looking toward tradition because, as I mentioned in the last round, there are many instances of Paul visiting instead of writing, or sending Timothy to instruct the people. What is taught is not specifically in scripture, but handed down through tradition, and specifically, though not all transcribed at that time, in the Didache, the first document of organized rituals that were handed down from Christ to the Apostles, and then to the Ministers after them. Finally, I will point out that scripture also refers to a teaching body to interpret for things for us, specifically the church. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." - 1 Tim 3:15 (KJV) We cannot interpret the bible on our own, "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." - Acts 8:29-31 (KJV) In conclusion, based on these scriptures, and on the teaching authority of the Church, I still claim, that water baptism with the name of Jesus, and not with the form laid out in the Great Commission, is not the fulfillment of what Christ had commanded.