Water Baptism: What's the big deal?

Author: RoderickSpode ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 71
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    This thread is not meant to suggest the only, or ultimate reason for water baptism. But like many commands in the Bible, suggest a lesson.

    First off, when a convert accepts the call to be baptized, they are not submitting to being cleansed by the H2o they will be submerged in. If someone is baptized in a swimming pool, the water doesn't transform into a divine detergent. It remains the same water with the same  chlorine. If it's a river or lake, it will remain the same murky water, and probably won't make much difference to the nearby fish. Water baptism itself won't save anyone's soul. It's not ultimately necessary for salvation. If it was, the thief on the cross who repented would not have been allowed entrance into paradise.

    It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure. But the water itself does no spiritual cleansing. Baptism is symbolic, and an act of obedience.


    When one becomes a believer, the point where God meets them in a divine way, they find they have a calling.

    Ephesians 4:1 New International Version (NIV)
    Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ
    As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.


    To embark on that journey requires obedience and to follow a spiritual leading. Whether that calling is to become a minister, or a witness in a secular field, etc., it's a spiritual journey that requires the aforementioned. If someone encounters the living God, gives their life to Him, etc., logically if that person refused to be baptized, there would probably be something seriously wrong. Why would they refuse a commandment which is often made in public to some degree, usually relegated to other believers? If that person, for instance, expressed a desire to get involved in a ministry that's part of the church that would be baptizing them, it would certainly be a red flag for the church leaders because it would appear that this person would ultimately refuse leadership. And of course ultimately, it would be a pretty sure sign that the person would not follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in terms of fulfilling their calling (running the race).


    This principle of relatively simple obedience can be applied to a number of ceremonial practices and observances mandated in the Bible, like communion. Again, nothing magical about the juice and wafers. They do not transform into the literal body and blood of Christ (are you listening Deb8able?). But the obedience serves a similar purpose of simple obedience to Christ, and the Body of Christ. And serves a purpose of obedience in
    examining our hearts.



  • Tyran_Ohsor
    Tyran_Ohsor avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4
    0
    0
    0
    Tyran_Ohsor avatar
    Tyran_Ohsor
    --> @RoderickSpode
    when a convert accepts the call to be baptized
    The word "call" can be interpreted in many ways. Most Christians would most likely love to wax lyrical about God informing His subject that "it is time to be as one with Me" .

    Of course, in reality "the call" is nothing more than a voice within the head of someone who is impressionable, naive, gullible and overcome with a shot of addrenalin-infused elation at finding his or herself's place in life.

    Religious organisations are just as enthusiastic at the prospect of sucking a new member into its fold and what better way to put the seal on the contract by performing a ritualistic indoctrination ceremony. From this point onwards the (previously) lost soul is reminded that there is no turning back from salvation as the consequences would be dire.

    Delusion is a common trait of the weak and confued and Churches certainly don't miss a trick in capitalising on it.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,936
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tyran_Ohsor
    Well stated.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,102
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    TRIGGERED.

    Well this clears things up for me. 
    See I've been trying to workout how much flavoring a 80kg bloke makes.
    So The body of christ wafers are nothing more then just wafers. 
    I've had three body of christ wafers in my life. 
    I could of swore that the bloke in the robe that i got them of, as he passed it to me said . 
    " The Body of christ "
    What he should say as he hands them out is. 
    " A wafer " 
    " A wafer " 

    Is Holy water and tap water  EXACTLY the same thing  ?

    Can one turn holy water back into tap water ? 

    Can you make holy water ?

    I'm just going to pretend i can make holy water. 
    Then I'm going to pretend that i can bless shlt with it. 
    Why?   Because thats how it works.

    It's a bit like when i put bits of bacon on my jewish bosses lunch. 
    The first time i did it.
    I was walking to the office to see the boss one hour after lunch,
    and I'm thinking. 
    As soon as i open the office door up  ,  my boss will be like a blob of unrecognizable slim. 
    I got near the office door and i heard he talking , i was like phew, thank you god. 
    I went on to feed about 4 jewish people ham, and other assorted piggy stuff.  

    24 years after this.  4 years ago. 
    My boss dies.   
    And now i can't help but feel that he may not of went to heaven because of me.  Thats ( jewish heaven ).

    When we die there will be a bloke with a list. 
    And # 371 on that list is. 
    Pork consumption in kilograms. 

    Wich is understandable because . 
    You can't go to heaven if you regularly eat pork.
    I mean it's just straight commonsense.  
    It's like umm, you can't go to heaven if you have a foreskin. 
    Again. Just straight common sense. 
    Of course ya can't go to heaven if you have a foreskin. 

    But back to the point. The post.
    I hear what you say. And i believe it is what you say it is. 
    But the next poster ( tyran ) works with more reasoning. And this may be a outcome of you guys doing something you dont have to do. 

    It's like luck. 




  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Tyran_Ohsor
    The word "call" can be interpreted in many ways. Most Christians would most likely love to wax lyrical about God informing His subject that "it is time to be as one with Me" .

    Of course, in reality "the call" is nothing more than a voice within the head of someone who is impressionable, naive, gullible and overcome with a shot of addrenalin-infused elation at finding his or herself's place in life.

    Religious organisations are just as enthusiastic at the prospect of sucking a new member into its fold and what better way to put the seal on the contract by performing a ritualistic indoctrination ceremony. From this point onwards the (previously) lost soul is reminded that there is no turning back from salvation as the consequences would be dire.

    Delusion is a common trait of the weak and confued and Churches certainly don't miss a trick in capitalising on it.
    It's definitely true that many church folk have been duped. Here's the problem; some of the dupesters were, or are, atheists. Have you ever heard of Marjoe Gortner? He was a child evangelist trained to con church goers out of their money. He eventually fessed up as an adult, and basically did an expose on evangelist con-artistry. Sort of like when pro wrestlers fesses up about how the matches are scripted ending the kayfabe era of pro wrestling. So obviously there's a number of evangelist con-artists that are atheists. So it would appear that in a number of cases the scumbags are atheists.

    And although the "honk-if-you're-an-atheist" era is relatively new, the atheist con artist doesn't focus on merely church folk. Do you remember the Zeitgeist movie scam? How many atheists do you think were duped on that one? Yeah! Atheists will lie. And impressionable, naive, and gullible atheists do fall for their lies.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    This may sound strange, but your post is the most logical response so far.

    I'm absolutely speechless.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode
    It's definitely true that many church folk have been duped. Here's the problem; some of the dupesters were, or are, atheists. 

    Yet somehow managed to find themselves in the  position and have the authority to baptist (dupe) others. Strange it is that although the dupester is in this position one has to ask where he himself got his authority to  dupe/baptise. It says a lot about "spiritual cleansing" and being received by god, and god knowing his own, doesn't it?

    But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

    Who baptised John the Baptist? 

    Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?

     It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure
    Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16


    Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

    What caused John to believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place? Matthew 3:13

    Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

    Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen

    Yet somehow managed to find themselves in the  position and have the authority to baptist (dupe) others. Strange it is that although the dupester is in this position one has to ask where he himself got his authority to  dupe/baptise. It says a lot about "spiritual cleansing" and being received by god, and god knowing his own, doesn't it?

    But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .


    I don't think it says anything about spiritual cleansing. Only that there are con-artists out there using religion as their tool. And for the record, I don't know if the particular atheist dupester I was talking about (Marjoe Gortner) baptized anyone.


    But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

    Who baptised John the Baptist? 

    Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?
    First off, I'm wondering if you read my post, or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.

    The Bible doesn't get into specifics as far as who may have baptized him in the ceremonial sense. Scripture does point out that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. And the reason I'm wondering if you actually read the O.P., is because one of my emphasis was on how baptism was not confined to legalism. If John was not ceremonially baptized, then his position would be similar to the repentant thief on the cross. Obedience to ceremonial baptism was not necessary for obvious reasons for the thief.

    As far as authority, again, the Bible doesn't specifically say. From the top of my head, I would say the Holy Spirit of by which he was filled. As far as I know, his baptism may have occurred while in the womb. Others may be able to give more insight though.

    Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16

    As I stated, baptism is an act of obedience. The beginning of a journey of continual obedience in fulfilling the call. Thus, Jesus was acting as a model of obedience. And again, others may have more insight.


    Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

    John the Baptist was still human. The confusion would be hardly startling. He recognized who Jesus was to some degree when he leaped in the
    womb. Now he's encountering the Son of the living God face to face. Who wouldn't be confused (or overwhelmed) under those circumstances?


    What caused John to believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place? Matthew 3:13

    As I stated, he just encountered the Son of the living God face to face. Who wouldn't be overwhelmed at the prospect of being asked to Baptize the Son of the living God?



    Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

    Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?
    I don't think this was an issue of legalism, e.g., the rule book on water baptism states that the Son of God has to baptize me, or we're breaking the rules. I would refer back to my statement of John the Baptist simply being overwhelmed at the prospect. And of course others may have more insight.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,226
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @RoderickSpode
    This thread is not meant to suggest the only, or ultimate reason for water baptism. But like many commands in the Bible, suggest a lesson.

    First off, when a convert accepts the call to be baptized, they are not submitting to being cleansed by the H2o they will be submerged in. If someone is baptized in a swimming pool, the water doesn't transform into a divine detergent. It remains the same water with the same  chlorine. If it's a river or lake, it will remain the same murky water, and probably won't make much difference to the nearby fish. Water baptism itself won't save anyone's soul. It's not ultimately necessary for salvation. If it was, the thief on the cross who repented would not have been allowed entrance into paradise.

    It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure. But the water itself does no spiritual cleansing. Baptism is symbolic, and an act of obedience.


    When one becomes a believer, the point where God meets them in a divine way, they find they have a calling.
    Water Baptism is a Luciferian rite, intended to show obeisance to the fish god Dagon, a.k.a. Oannes, a.k.a. Heru (son of Asar a.k.a. Osiris.) Remember that when Asar died, he was thrown into the water and reemerged as Heru. Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru. John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen

    But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

    Who baptised John the Baptist? 

    Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?
    First off, I'm wondering if you read my post, or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.



    So you don't know that answers to questions on this subject but just happen to know what baptism is all about; " obedience" according to only you.


    The Bible doesn't get into specifics as far as who may have baptized him in the ceremonial sense.

    So was John the Baptist baptised or not?


    Scripture does point out that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.

    It does. It also says that he - while in the womb -  John recognised Jesus and kicked with excitement. 



    And the reason I'm wondering if you actually read the O.P.,

    I did. it was to do with what YOU believe and your opinions about baptism. 



    If John was not ceremonially baptized, then his position would be similar to the repentant thief on the cross.

    But he had some kind of authority to perform this ritual. He had been doing it some time before Jesus came to him. 



    his baptism may have occurred while in the womb.
    Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?



    Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16

    . Thus, Jesus was acting as a model of obedience. And again, others may have more insight.
    And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:
    "It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.




    Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

    John the Baptist was still human. The confusion would be hardly startling. He recognized who Jesus was to some degree when he leaped in the
    womb.

    .  John recognized Jesus in the womb because - according to you - he may have been filled with the holy spirit but still appears confused;  but not about who Jesus is when faced with Jesus the man,  but about who should be baptizing who. The bible makes it clear that John the Baptist recognized Jesus the man right away,  he wasn't confused about it at all. He recognised him as soon as he cast eyes on him saying ; 

    John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

    yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

    And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13




    Who wouldn't be confused (or overwhelmed) under those circumstances?

    Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 




    Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

    Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?
    I don't think this was an issue of legalism, e.g., the rule book on water baptism states that the Son of God has to baptize me, or we're breaking the rules. I would refer back to my statement of John the Baptist simply being overwhelmed at the prospect. And of course others may have more insight.
    So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.


    Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

    And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

    “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. “(Acts 2:38)

    John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)


    And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

    You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".






    or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.

    No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

    "When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

    Really!?
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Athias
    Water Baptism is a Luciferian rite, intended to show obeisance to the fish god Dagon, a.k.a. Oannes, a.k.a. Heru (son of Asar a.k.a. Osiris.) Remember that when Asar died, he was thrown into the water and reemerged as Heru. Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru. John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.
    I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism. Are you of the opinion that historically speaking, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone? Or that there was no John the Baptist?

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode


    But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

    Who baptised John the Baptist? 

    Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?
    First off, I'm wondering if you read my post, or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.



    So you don't know the answers to those questions on this subject but just happen to know what baptism is all about; " obedience" according to only you.


    The Bible doesn't get into specifics as far as who may have baptized him in the ceremonial sense.

    So was John the Baptist baptised or not?


    Scripture does point out that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.

    It does. It also says that he - while in the womb -  John recognised Jesus and kicked with excitement. 



    And the reason I'm wondering if you actually read the O.P.,

    I did. it was to do with what YOU believe and your opinions about baptism. 



    If John was not ceremonially baptized, then his position would be similar to the repentant thief on the cross.

    But he had some kind of authority to perform this ritual. He had been doing it some time before Jesus came to him. 



    his baptism may have occurred while in the womb.
    Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?



    Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16

    Thus, Jesus was acting as a model of obedience. And again, others may have more insight.
    And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:
    "It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.




    Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

    John the Baptist was still human. The confusion would be hardly startling. He recognized who Jesus was to some degree when he leaped in the
    womb.

    .  John recognized Jesus in the womb because - according to you - he may have been filled with the holy spirit but still appears confused;  but not about who Jesus is when faced with Jesus the man,  but about who should be baptizing who. The bible makes it clear that John the Baptist recognized Jesus the man right away,  he wasn't confused about it at all. He recognised him as soon as he cast eyes on him saying ; 

    John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

    yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

    And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13




    Who wouldn't be confused (or overwhelmed) under those circumstances?

    Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 




    Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

    Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?
    I don't think this was an issue of legalism, e.g., the rule book on water baptism states that the Son of God has to baptize me, or we're breaking the rules. I would refer back to my statement of John the Baptist simply being overwhelmed at the prospect. And of course others may have more insight.
    So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.


    Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

    And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

    “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. “(Acts 2:38)

    John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)


    And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

    You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".






    or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.

    No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

    "When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

    Really!?



  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen

    So you don't know that answers to questions on this subject but just happen to know what baptism is all about; " obedience" according to only you.

    I might not be able to answer this question because I can't understand it. You may need to fix it up a bit. And I believe I mentioned that I'm not suggesting that "obedience" is the only or ultimate reason for water Baptism.


    So was John the Baptist baptised or not?
    Like I said, the Bible doesn't reveal that info. I think the problem is you're trying to turn this into a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Water Baptism may not have been required of him. Are you of the opinion that if a man stranded on a deserted island becomes a believer, he cannot ultimately be saved because there's no one else on the island to Baptize him?



    I did. it was to do with what YOU believe and your opinions about baptism. 

    Well, I'm glad to hear you read it all.




    It does. It also says that he - while in the womb -  John recognised Jesus and kicked with excitement. 

    Well there you go! We don't seem to be in any conflict here.

    Or are we?


    .  John recognized Jesus in the womb because - according to you - he may have been filled with the holy spirit but still appears confused;  but not about who Jesus is when faced with Jesus the man,  but about who should be baptizing who. The bible makes it clear that John the Baptist recognized Jesus the man right away,  he wasn't confused about it at all. He recognised him as soon as he cast eyes on him saying ; 



    It's not my opinion that John was filled with the Holy Spirit inside the womb. He was filled with the Holy Spirit.


    John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

    yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

    And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13
    Sorry to try and answer your question with another question, but do you see any connection here?

     John 13:8 New International Version "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."

    Granted, it's a reverse scenario. John thinking the action should be taken on him, whereas with Peter it's the other way around.

    Imagine a priest in a Catholic church confessional booth, and telling a church member on the other side of the curtain that he's going to confess his sins to him. The church member will probably say "No, I should be confessing my sins to you!" In other words, it's about honor and position.



    Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 
    Being the greatest man didn't mean he was perfect. Moses was the most humblest man. He still had his problems.


    So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.

    John did not refuse to Baptize Jesus. And if I'm struggling, it's just trying to explain it in a way you'll understand.

    No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

    "When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

    Really!?

    Yes. He was in prison, wondering why he still there whilst hearing about Jesus healing people, and spreading the news of salvation. Are you still having a problem with the notion of John although being the greatest, was still not perfect?


    But he had some kind of authority to perform this ritual. He had been doing it some time before Jesus came to him.
    Something to chew on.

    Galatians 1:11-12 New International Version (NIV)
    Paul Called by God
    11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

    Basically, ultimately it's God who gives the authority.


    Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?

    If John thought he needed to be baptized a second time (like if he somehow knew in the womb he was Baptized in the Holy Spirit), don't you think he would have had a fellow believer Baptize him (to make it ceremonially official)?

    It's apparent that what John meant was, if anyone should be doing the baptizing between you and I, I should be the one baptized by you.




    And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:
    "It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.




    Yes, I do think there's evidence to support that. Jesus' life was all about obedience to the Father.

    Phillippians 2:8
    And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.

    Why do you think Baptism would be any different?


    And Jesus did not need cleansing. The water itself didn't clean anyone. That is, it didn't save anyone. Jesus also did not need to die a sinner's death.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Stephen
    Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

    And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

    “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. “(Acts 2:38)

    John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea
    and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)



    And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

    You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".

    You gave 3 verses that are direct commands to be Baptized, and you don't think obedience plays a part here? Wow! Was this apparent command actually optional?
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,226
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @RoderickSpode
    I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.
    I never said that you did. The association of water to Baptism is germane to this thread's subject, isn't it?

    Are you of the opinion that historically speaking, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone?
    My "opinion" in this case would be irrelevant if we're discussing historical context. And you're rendering a non sequitur. I'm positing that Baptism neither necessitates nor implicates one's submergence in a body of water; the submergence in a body of water is a Luciferian rite in veneration of the fish god, Dagon. John's mention of "water" in Matthew was metaphorical.

    Or that there was no John the Baptist?
    Non sequitur.


  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Athias
    Okay. I (think) I understand what you're saying now.

    Well, if you think I'm implying that Baptism requires submergence into water, then no. I'm not.

    Christ commands His followers to be Baptized. Whether it's submerged into water or not, the believer is to obey that command. The reason I referred to being submerged in a pool, lake, or river was simply because that's generally how it's done nowadays. John who performed the Baptism of Repentance Baptized in a river. I would say those being Baptized probably were submerged. But whether they were or not is not the issue. My point was simply that the water doesn't do the cleansing.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,226
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @RoderickSpode
    Okay. I (think) I understand what you're saying now.

    Well, if you think I'm implying that Baptism requires submergence into water, then no. I'm not.

    Christ commands His followers to be Baptized. Whether it's submerged into water or not, the believer is to obey that command. The reason I referred to being submerged in a pool, lake, or river was simply because that's generally how it's done nowadays. John who performed the Baptism of Repentance Baptized in a river. I would say those being Baptized probably were submerged. But whether they were or not is not the issue. My point was simply that the water doesn't do the cleansing.
    I'm not suggesting that you were implying anything. I'm merely using your statements as a backdrop or context to submit my posits. The ancient Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, but Baptisms were never associated with water outside of metaphorical language. So when asked, "Water Baptism: What's the Big Deal?" I'm stating that the big deal with Water Baptism is that it's not Hebraic, Abrahamic, Judaic, or even Christian. I'm stating that the submergence and reemergence from bodies of water, as is typical with Water Baptism, is Luciferian symbolism. It represents the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru. Asar is submerged into the water after his death, and reemerges as Heru. Heru is also known by the monikers "Oannes" and "Dagon" the fish god. Thus the conclusion I extend from my premises is that Water Baptism is a veiled Luciferian ritual. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @RoderickSpode



    So was John the Baptist baptised or not?
    Like I said, the Bible doesn't reveal that info.

    yes it does. 




    I think the problem is you're trying to turn this into a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

    No I am not. Stop looking for a get out. if you don't know then simply say so. stop looking for excuses and trying to blame me for your own biblical ignorance. You have stated to me that  John the Baptist was "confused and didn't recognise Jesus at first. I have shown you to be wrong and that John recognised him immediately.>>>>> John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"<<<<<<. 

    And it was the Egg that came before the chicken anyone knows that.



    Water Baptism may not have been required of him. Are you of the opinion that if a man stranded on a deserted island becomes a believer, he cannot ultimately be saved because there's no one else on the island to Baptize him?
    No. Please stop the convolution and misrepresenting what I have clearly asked.  It was a simply question that I have eventually answered for you. Jesus makes it clear that John was baptised . Matthew 21:25





    John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

    yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

    And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13
    Sorry to try and answer your question with another question, but do you see any connection here?

    No. So just answer the question and stop digressing , please.


     
    Imagine a priest in a Catholic church confessional booth,[.......................]

    This has nothing at all to do with WHY John the Baptist believed  that it was Jesus who should be baptising him. Just say you don't know and stop trying to make things up on the hoof. They are piss poor scenarios that go absolutely nowhere.



    Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 
    Being the greatest man didn't mean he was perfect. Moses was the most humblest man. He still had his problems.


    So you keep saying, but if you are going to keep falling back on that old chestnut of an excuse every time your stumped to answer pretty straightforward question, then you alone throw the whole of the scriptures into disrepute. Including its authors and everything they are believed to have wrote.



    So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.

    John did not refuse to Baptize Jesus. And if I'm struggling, it's just trying to explain it in a way you'll understand.

    Now you are refuting what the bible itself states. Lets have another look shall we; In Matthew 3:14 and depending on which bible one chooses, states that John either tried to ; deter , prevent, hinder, prevent ,or forbid Jesus to be baptised. 

    "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?


    No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

    "When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

    Really!?

    Yes. [.......] Are you still having a problem with the notion of John although being the greatest, was still not perfect?

    If anyone is having problems it is you. And  your full blown denials of the bleedin` obvious.  Putting the biblical fact aside that JESUS HIMSELF had said "John was the greatest of all born of woman". John seen the descending dove. John kicked with excitement in the womb. He had recognized Jesus as the messiah immediately, and  John was told directly by god that this - Jesus- was the one to come, saying,  "this is my son and I love him and I am well pleased” Matthew 3:17





    Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?

    If John thought he needed to be baptized a second time (like if he somehow knew in the womb he was Baptized in the Holy Spirit), don't you think he would have had a fellow believer Baptize him (to make it ceremonially official)?


    Then why even wait all those years for Jesus to come onto the scene to ask Jesus. And again, what ever caused him to believe it should have been the other way around in the first place.

    It's apparent that what John meant was, if anyone should be doing the baptizing between you and I, I should be the one baptized by you.

    Well it was "apparent" to John was it. Or have you forgotten already that  John either tried to ; deter , prevent, hinder, prevent ,or forbid Jesus to be baptised. 

    "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?Matthew 3:14





    And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:
    "It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.


    Yes, I do think there's evidence to support that. Jesus' life was all about obedience to the Father.

    Phillippians 2:8
    And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.



     Sorry but that pointless and irrelevant verse goes nowhere in answering why the son of god would need to be "washed, cleansed, and made pure".


    I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.

    Maybe not John, but the scripture certainly does,.doesn't it. But you want to insist that it has nothing to do with washing away sins , yet i have shown you biblical evidence to the contrary. Washing does involve water.


    Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

    And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

    “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. “(Acts 2:38)

    John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea
    and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)



    And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

    You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".


    You gave 3 verses that are direct commands to be Baptized, and you don't think obedience plays a part here? Wow! Was this apparent command actually optional?

    Never mind being flippant.  Those verses tell us all what baptism is all about and there is no mention of ` come be obedient and have your sins washed away in the water".

    You just make up crap and don't expect to be challenged on what you preach. You don't like it when someone has the audacity to challenge you or your scripture. this is a religion discussion forum not a preachers pulpit.



  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,936
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @RoderickSpode
    Atheistic and theistic con artists alike.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,936
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Athias
    Luciferianism is just another spin on the same old deistic mythology.

    So what's new.

    Water and cleansing are obvious targets for ritualism and therefore have probably been regarded as such, for as long as it as been possible to regard them as such.

  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Athias
    I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.
    I never said that you did. The association of water to Baptism is germane to this thread's subject, isn't it?


    Well it is titled :- Water Baptism: What's the big deal?





  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Athias
    I'm not suggesting that you were implying anything. I'm merely using your statements as a backdrop or context to submit my posits. The ancient Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, but Baptisms were never associated with water outside of metaphorical language. So when asked, "Water Baptism: What's the Big Deal?" I'm stating that the big deal with Water Baptism is that it's not Hebraic, Abrahamic, Judaic, or even Christian. I'm stating that the submergence and reemergence from bodies of water, as is typical with Water Baptism, is Luciferian symbolism. It represents the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru. Asar is submerged into the water after his death, and reemerges as Heru. Heru is also known by the monikers "Oannes" and "Dagon" the fish god. Thus the conclusion I extend from my premises is that Water Baptism is a veiled Luciferian ritual. 
    Yes, the ancients Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, and water is used metaphorically throughout the Bible. I don't see any conflict there. I'm not implying that Water Baptism is the sole property of any ancient culture or religion.

    As far as your conclusion that the Water Baptism practiced by John the Baptist or Christians in general is veiled Luciferian symbolism, all I can say is it's an interesting take. And, I can respect your opinion. I don't see any reason to accept it as anything but your opinion. I don't see any reason to think that the reincarnation of Asar has anything to do with Christ's command for His followers to be Baptized, unless you can show me otherwise.


    These comments by the way didn't go unnoticed.


    Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru.


    And...

    John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.


    Forgive me if these fall into the category of it should be so obvious, but I definitely would like clarification.

    When you say so-called "Christians", this could mean false Christians (which I think is usually the case). Or, there really is no such thing as a Christian. (We're just unaware Luciferian practitioners). I'm not even sure how important this is to your conclusion of veiled Luciferian ritual.

    So I assume what you're suggesting is that when I was Baptized, I, and the ministry Baptizing me were unknowingly practicing a Luciferian rite. And John the Baptist the same.



    What's not clear is whether or not you're stating that John was unbeknownst to us Christians, in on this Luciferian rite so to speak.

  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @zedvictor4
    Atheistic and theistic con artists alike.
    I'm not sure if there's a particular point here. I'm certainly not arguing that there's no such thing as a theistic con artist.

    Tyran (I think that's part of the user name he was using at the time), whom you agreed with, has a tendency to suggest there's a large gulf between theists and atheists in terms of morality and intelligence.

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,226
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @RoderickSpode
    As far as your conclusion that the Water Baptism practiced by John the Baptist or Christians in general is veiled Luciferian symbolism
    John, as far as information from the Bible delineates, did not practice Water Baptism. His mention of the "water of repentance" is metaphorical language, much like his mention of "fire." Therefore your assessment that my conclusion implicates John as a practitioner of Water Baptism is a non-sequitur.

    And, I can respect your opinion. I don't see any reason to accept it as anything but your opinion.
    It is not an opinion. And appealing to your own incredulity does not make it an opinion.

    I don't see any reason to think that the reincarnation of Asar has anything to do with Christ's command for His followers to be Baptized, unless you can show me otherwise.
    Non sequitur. I never suggested that Christ's command had anything to do with the reincarnation of Asar. We are specifically discussing Water Baptism. The practice of submerging and reemerging from bodies of water (Water Baptism) is Luciferian symbolism--particularly the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru.

    Forgive me if these fall into the category of it should be so obvious, but I definitely would like clarification.

    When you say so-called "Christians", this could mean false Christians (which I think is usually the case). Or, there really is no such thing as a Christian. (We're just unaware Luciferian practitioners). I'm not even sure how important this is to your conclusion of veiled Luciferian ritual.

    So I assume what you're suggesting is that when I was Baptized, I, and the ministry Baptizing me were unknowingly practicing a Luciferian rite. And John the Baptist the same.



    What's not clear is whether or not you're stating that John was unbeknownst to us Christians, in on this Luciferian rite so to speak.
    Let me clarify: I'm not at all alleging that John was complicit in the creation of this Luciferian rite. I'm suggesting that the association of water with Baptism--particularly John's mention--is being used by Luciferians to veil their Luciferian rite as a Christian one. One such example would be Catholicism. Catholicism is paganism. Catholicism is Luciferian. Of course, their Luciferian rites and rituals extend beyond just Water Baptism (e.g. prayers to Mary, the Eucharist, the pope and cardinals head dresses and staffs, magisterial privilege, etc.)

    As far as parishioners, I can only suspect that they are unwitting in these Luciferian rituals. If you were baptized by being submerged into a body of water, then yes, you were (unwittingly) practicing a Luciferian ritual.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 999
    2
    2
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @Athias

    Let me clarify: I'm not at all alleging that John was complicit in the creation of this Luciferian rite. I'm suggesting that the association of water with Baptism--particularly John's mention--is being used by Luciferians to veil their Luciferian rite as a Christian one. One such example would be Catholicism. Catholicism is paganism. Catholicism is Luciferian. Of course, their Luciferian rites and rituals extend beyond just Water Baptism (e.g. prayers to Mary, the Eucharist, the pope and cardinals head dresses and staffs, magisterial privilege, etc.)

    As far as parishioners, I can only suspect that they are unwitting in these Luciferian rituals. If you were baptized by being submerged into a body of water, then yes, you were (unwittingly) practicing a Luciferian ritual.
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    I don't think I have any real argument with you that I can tell at the moment. Christians using the same method  of Baptism (submerging-reemerging) is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Unless there's an argument of copying from/stealing from. Then it would be like any other pagan practice/ceremony/holiday/mythology copying argument.

    As far as the portion of the title "What's the big deal?", I had my own idea, but of course left it open for one's personal interpretation. Basically, if Baptism doesn't save one's soul, what's the big deal? Why would it be necessary? And the Catholic belief about Baptism would be an example. (As a side-note, I'm not aware of them practicing submergence in Baptism). And an issue with some atheists. I've heard an atheist say when asked if they had been born again, said yes, because they were Baptized. The atheist went on to argue that if an astronaut tried to become born again while orbiting, they couldn't because they wouldn't have the water, or necessary amount of water, or proper facility to get Baptized.