Infant Baptism as the Mark of the Beast

[1689dave]

The only clear record of baptism in the New Testament is Jesus telling the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which they did when they baptized without exception in the Name of Jesus Christ. A Greek translation of YHWH. Also a revelation of the trinity in God.

Pope Stephen changed this to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the names of the empty offices of the Trinity instead of the personal name of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. See Baptism; Catholic Encyclopedia, p 263.

This tells me the Antichrist Pope began sitting in the Temple of God (Christendom) as early as the second century. All of Christendom rejects Jesus and the Apostles in this method of baptism and follows the Antichrist Papacy instead whether or
not an infant or adult baptism.

[Soloist]

The only clear record of baptism in the New Testament is Jesus telling the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which they did when they baptized without exception in the Name of Jesus Christ. A Greek translation of YHWH. Also a revelation of the trinity in God.

Pope Stephen changed this to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the names of the empty offices of the Trinity instead of the personal name of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. See Baptism; Catholic Encyclopedia, p 263.

This tells me the Antichrist Pope began sitting in the Temple of God (Christendom) as early as the second century. All of Christendom rejects Jesus and the Apostles in this method of baptism and follows the Antichrist Papacy instead whether or
not an infant or adult baptism.

I don’t agree.
I also don’t think the trinity is clear from Scripture either.

[ohio jones]

Jorg Maler's Kunstbuch? The comment really makes sense. Let me know if this is the right book and I'll look for a copy, especially a searchable version.

You can find it here.

[Sudsy]

Actually the 'mark of the beast' is believer water baptism in a mode other than total immersion. Just kidding.

But it does seem strange to me that the mode of water baptism somehow took on an alternate mode to total immersion especially by those who champion the bible being taken literally.

I think the 'mark of the beast' and what are considered 'abominations' have been used by various groups to state their belief is right and anything otherwise is heresy. Few seem to want to admit that we now only know in part and that we see through a glass darkly.

[Josh]

The only clear record of baptism in the New Testament is Jesus telling the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which they did when they baptized without exception in the Name of Jesus Christ. A Greek translation of YHWH. Also a revelation of the trinity in God.

Pope Stephen changed this to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the names of the empty offices of the Trinity instead of the personal name of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. See Baptism; Catholic Encyclopedia, p 263.

This tells me the Antichrist Pope began sitting in the Temple of God (Christendom) as early as the second century. All of Christendom rejects Jesus and the Apostles in this method of baptism and follows the Antichrist Papacy instead whether or
not an infant or adult baptism.

“Yahweh” means “I am”. “Jesus Christ” is not a translation of that in any sense.

It is fine to baptise in either the name of the trinity or in the name of Jesus. Some people such as myself have a “quadratic” baptism - I have been baptised in name of Jesus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, both via immersion and pouring, and both as an adult and before the age of accountability (at age 9), and with the evidence of speaking in tongues too. This is great news because I am born again and saved according to multiple doctrines:

- Mennonite
- Catholic
- Oneness Pentecostal
- Baptist
- German Baptist

Perhaps all of us could adopt such baptism practices and end these debates once and for all.

[1689dave]

“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Jude 5 (ESV)
Several of the oldest manuscripts call YHWH Jesus. This is an example.

Jesus Christ is YHWH: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9

In the Greek translation, kyrios was used to render the divine name Yahweh (יהוה, yhwh). Thus it became possible to transfer to Jesus statements that were attributed in the Old Testament to God.

Ramos, A. (2016). Jesus Christ, Titles of. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord (YHWH), but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3 (KJV 1900)

JESUS CHRIST
“Jesus Christ” is a composite name made up of the personal name “Jesus” (from Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yešû (a)?, a late form of Hebrew yehôšûa?, the meaning of which is “YHWH is salvation” or “YHWH saves/has saved”) and the title, assimilated in early Christianity to Jesus as a name, “Christ” (from Gk Christos, which translates Heb maši^a? and Aram meši^a, signifying “anointed” and referring in the context of eschatological expectation to the royal “son of David”). The name “Jesus Christ” thus binds together the historic figure Jesus with the messianic role and status that early Christian faith attributed to him. In Jesus’ own lifetime, his name, since it was common in Israel, called for a specifier: “Jesus the Galilean” (Matt 26:69; cf.21:11), or, more often, “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarean.” Jesus is YHWH Meyer, B. F. (1992). Jesus (Person): Jesus Christ. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 773). New York: Doubleday.

Therefore, any who profess that YHWH (Jesus) has not came in the flesh is an Anti-Christ; “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.” 1 John 2:22 (NLT)

“But regarding the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE SCEPTER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF JOY ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”” Hebrews 1:8–9 (NASB 2020)

“For a Child will be born to us, a Son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6 (NASB 2020)
“There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of armies will accomplish this.” Isaiah 9:7 (NASB 2020)

When Jesus told the apostles “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19, they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the personal name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

In the second century, Pope Stephen, bishop of Rome stole Christ’s and the Apostles’ authority as his role of the Antichrist called for according to Paul 2 Thessalonians 2:3. When he changed the only method of baptism clearly illustrated in scripture, that is, Baptism in the personal name of Jesus Christ, into the impersonal titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, gutting the Trinity’s personal essence. See The Catholic Encyclopedia; Baptism, p 263.

[Soloist]

You have very strong feelings on this. Are you familiar with the early church writings?
Are you aware of when they got around to addressing the Holy Spirit and the concept of the trinity? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Constantine.

[Josh]

This is commonly known as the “sacred names” doctrine.

For me, I am happy to confess that Jesus is God, that he is also the Son, and when we baptise in the name of the Son, we baptise in the name of Jesus. I am content with a trinitarian baptism but also think a Jesus-only baptism is okay too. (This would put me outside of orthodox doctrine!) I feel God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost will be welcoming many of their sheep at the wedding supper who were baptised a variety of ways.

Perhaps there God will work with us on the exact pronunciation of his name - but since many nations and tongues and tribes will be there, we may hear a few different accents: a heavy PA Dutch one, a Banawha one, and perhaps even a confused Australian-Canadian-Midwest-Appalachian accent like mine own.

[Valerie]

That may be, but at least it would convey that it was not made up later to baptize infants that the early writers at least some of them believed in it and Origen said the Apostles taught it. Just saying that tells us it wasn't the Pope's idea nor from what I read about the mark of the beast it was nothing even close to what this OPs conveying so i was wondering if this idea here was from Scripture alone or an "idea" not sure how this connection could possibly have been made.

It’s a game of telephone, the things the apostles taught keep popping up later and later but were never referenced earlier or the argument is that the actual referenced stuff wasn’t about what it seems to say.
There certainly was anti icon talk from early church fathers and later church fathers claim it was only about pagan icons. Tertulian for example spends time justifying head coverings on virgins with arguments about male virgins and coverings. He clearly doesn’t believe men should cover at all but that appealing to rationalism by that argument would strongly suggest that he would have explained why the “Christian” icons were different then the pagan icons rather then condemn icons.
Later when the writings justifying icons also claimed the apostles taught it yet there isn’t any proof of that in writing prior. Making icons doesn’t mean they served a special purpose anymore then us today taking a photo of a spouse.

I realized there's no written proof that the apostles taught it. The only proof is that wherever the gospel was taken and those countries they practiced infant baptism. This was long before Constantine because I see in my book talk of it so my point was this was not something the pope came up with as a form of a mark of the beast that he wouldn't have realized was the mark of the beast. That seems to be quite a stretch and apparently isn't true.

Regarding icons I personally am quite comfortable once I understood about them. Apparently and of course this may be question, Luke was the first one to make an icon. He did a drawing of the Virgin Mary with the Christ child. The purpose of icons were to tell the gospel. Many people could not read and of course did not have Bibles but icons were used to convey truth. A picture of form. They were not carved figures that the Bible warns about as far as idolatry. The church went through a period of time where iconoclasts there it was idolatry but a council settled all that and it was determined that it is not idolatry. Somewhat like the Amish who forbid taking pictures because it is seen as graven images, but most Christians don't believe that is an appropriate takeaway of the commandment. The intent of the heart is Right but not the conclusion. Since we actually visited many Orthodox churches and one for the better part of a year consistently, we get a test that it is not idolatry. My spirit is sensitive enough to unclean spirits that it would have upset me. The icons are used to tell stories and bring honor to many Martyrs and also our picture stories they're beautiful and convey a truth. The Orthodox call him the windows to heaven. We also had to learn the difference between worship and veneration- a bow of respect, a kiss of live (holy), and although I realize that idolatry and veneration may seem very close to some, to others they have a clear understanding and distinction and know where to not cross over.

Anyway, it seems by now the idea of infant baptism being the mark of the beast surely is obviously an incorrect conclusion. So we can see how easily misled we can be even with the best intentions

[1689dave]

I believe the Papacy revealed himself as one of the beasts (Nero was a secular beast) and, Antichrist in the second century. Because he dethroned Christ and replaced the Apostles with himself. Vicar of Christ, used for the Pope, means "in place of Christ. The same definition as Antichrist. Here's what scripture says.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matthew 28:19 (KJV 1900)

Acts 2:38, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

Acts 19:5, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

(Acts 2:38) "Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

(Acts 8:6) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"

(Acts 10:47-48 Peter) "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as us?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days."

(Acts 19:4-5) "Then Paul said, John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe in him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

See Catholic Encyclopedia Baptism, p 263 on how the Papacy dethroned Christ and the Apostles.

BTW, as a modern-day Anabaptist, I was re-baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ in observance of this.