Infant Baptism as the Mark of the Beast

[Valerie]

What I was taught was that he said to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ to differentiate between John's baptism and Jesus baptism.

The Great Commission was the instruction of Jesus "go there for and Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and low, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen"

When we were considering becoming Orthodox Christians, we asked if we would need to be rebaptized Orthodox. Like the Catholics, they go back to the Apostles. The priest told us as long as you were baptized Trinitarian, as in the way Jesus said it, we would not be rebaptized we would be chrismated to receive the holy Spirit but a rebaptism would not be necessary. And I was baptized in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit as Jesus said when I was 15 in a non-denominational Church. (Although at this point the Calvary chapel movement would be considered a nomination)

The reformation sure did create a lot of confusion & sects which only gets worse as time goes on.

[Soloist]

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.

Okay, if I assume you are correct on this, where is that historical record and when does it date to? Otherwise this is no different then my first argument.

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.

I don’t have a problem with them being used as a teaching tool but if you are fairly evaluating them you know that’s not what is going on. My Orthodox friend didn’t have his icons to teach although I accept that they could have been used to teach.
Where did this account of Luke come from and what date was it from ?

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.

A council around 600 years after the apostles.
What is the earliest account endorsing the kissing of icons? The praying in front of an icon directed at the person depicted?
Kissing, praying, and bowing in some form of respect is not using these things for teaching. Holding up a picture of the apostle John and telling the history of his walk with Jesus is.

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 Mormons talk about the burning in their bosom, many Christian’s sinning and disobeying God also say similar things. Also this argument is an appeal to feelings rather then Scripture or historical record. That might be enough for you but it’s not a sound argument.

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.

Again, I don’t object to teaching

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.

Again, where is the historical record? The defense of it has to come from historical record if they are going to argue the apostles taught it.

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

I think there are many marks but who would that even be a mark for if it was one? I don’t believe a mark can be applied ignorantly or before one even understands what God is.

[1689dave]

Anytime you replace Christ's teaching, you have an Antichrist teaching. "In place of Christ" So the churches are rife with small marks of the beast. But the Papacy is the Antichrist along with those who live under his control. Infant baptism is a major Mark. But baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit defies Christ and the Apostles explicitly and stands out as a major Mark of the beast.

Secular leaders are also Beasts with the Mark and punishment for any who do not comply.

[ohio jones]

I think there are many marks but who would that even be a mark for if it was one? I don’t believe a mark can be applied ignorantly or before one even understands what God is.

If an innocent infant receives "the mark" it would be just as meaningless as if they were baptized.

[Josh]

But baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit defies Christ and the Apostles explicitly and stands out as a major Mark of the beast.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

[1689dave]

The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is Jesus Christ. This is the Pope's invention contrary to Christ.

What was the personal name of the Trinity in the Old Testament? What is the personal name of the Trinity in the New Testament?

Here's something to consider before drawing too many conclusions. Jesus told the Apostles to baptize believers in the name of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This they did when they baptized converts in the name of Jesus Christ. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the names of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is.

“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.He gave himself for us to set us free from every kind of lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are truly his, who are eager to do good.” Titus 2:13–14 (NET)

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:” 2 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

“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)

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

In the second century, The Bishop of Rome undermined Jesus and the Apostles' authority taking it to himself (Antichrist = in place of Christ). Instead calling for baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, contrary to the Apostle's revelation about the name of the trinity being Jesus Christ.

Why is Jesus Christ the personal name of the Trinity? “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9.

Another reason is the LXX, the Bible Jesus, and the early Church used, translated YHWH as Lord. So when they preached the Lord Jesus, they knew Jesus is YHWH.

The baptismal formula changed from the Apostles’ baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.

Baptism p263 Catholic Encyclopedia:

…”of this sacrament, the act of baptism must be expressed, and the matter and form be united to leave no doubt of the meaning of the ceremony. In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate persons of the Holy Trinity.”

The result? Again, the Pope undermined Christ’s revelation about the name of the Trinity and the Apostles’ authority. The Pope gave it to himself. Most of Christendom follows the Catholic formula instead of Jesus and the Apostles in that matter.

This alone proves that the Papacy is the Antichrist and still sits in the temple (Church) of God prevailing over Christendom today.

[Soloist]

Do you believe that following Jesus is reduced to correct words? Or does Jesus give some room for difference of belief?
Do you believe we are measured by our practice? Or doctrine? Or both?
Do you believe anyone is perfect in doctrine or practice?

[Ken]

Do you believe that following Jesus is reduced to correct words? Or does Jesus give some room for difference of belief?
Do you believe we are measured by our practice? Or doctrine? Or both?
Do you believe anyone is perfect in doctrine or practice?

Especially since we are arguing about an English translation and not the original words anyway.

[Valerie]

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.

Okay, if I assume you are correct on this, where is that historical record and when does it date to? Otherwise this is no different then my first argument.

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.

I don’t have a problem with them being used as a teaching tool but if you are fairly evaluating them you know that’s not what is going on. My Orthodox friend didn’t have his icons to teach although I accept that they could have been used to teach.
Where did this account of Luke come from and what date was it from ?

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.

A council around 600 years after the apostles.
What is the earliest account endorsing the kissing of icons? The praying in front of an icon directed at the person depicted?
Kissing, praying, and bowing in some form of respect is not using these things for teaching. Holding up a picture of the apostle John and telling the history of his walk with Jesus is.

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 Mormons talk about the burning in their bosom, many Christian’s sinning and disobeying God also say similar things. Also this argument is an appeal to feelings rather then Scripture or historical record. That might be enough for you but it’s not a sound argument.

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.

Again, I don’t object to teaching

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.

Again, where is the historical record? The defense of it has to come from historical record if they are going to argue the apostles taught it.

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

I think there are many marks but who would that even be a mark for if it was one? I don’t believe a mark can be applied ignorantly or before one even understands what God is.

Regarding Luke being attributed to the first icon, here is an article:
(Keeping in mind your relying on tradition handed down, but also the Catacombs had drawings, and God used artwork in the Tabernacle and the Jews used artwork)

https://aleteia.org/2017/10/18/4-icons- ... vangelist/

This is ot for the moment-

[ohio jones]

This is ot for the moment-

True; maybe we should move it to a new thread.