Then why baptize him.

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 43
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen

    This thread is inspired by a claim Tradesecret has made here #102


    Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin


    Then why did Jesus need to be baptised? 




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin


    Then why did Jesus need to be baptised? 
    Glad to see I inspire you. LOL!

    I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. 


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,022
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    Most scholars view Jesus's baptism as a strong historical probability precisely because it passes the criterion of dissimilarity (that is, it is dissimilar from what later Christians would have made up about him) or the criterion of embarrassment (it is embarrassing for Jesus, the messiah and son of God, to be baptized, since the one being baptized is typically regarded as spiritually inferior to the baptizer).

    My guess would be that many modern Christians view Jesus's baptism as not a necessity but as a symbol of his dedication, and as an example to others. In Matthew Jesus tells John that "it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Castin
    Yes, I agree with you. Modern readers might well think that. 

    I take the view that we need to step back and consider John the Baptist for  a moment without our 21st century eyes. 

    Here we have in the 1st century of Israel, a man, performing a water ceremony - calling for repentant of sins and preparing the way as it were for the Messiah who would come. 

    What is curious is whether John  started a new type of ceremony without revelation from God.  Or whether he  intentionally borrowed from the sects around that time - such as the Essenes.  Or whether in fact he was in fact following on from the true and tried traditions of the OT. 

    I say the latter.  

    What we need to recognize about John is that he was a Levite. His father had been the high priest - or if not the high priest - certainly the priest whom had been selected to enter the Holy of Holies on behalf of Israel.  That was where he had been struck dumb for not believing God. 

    So we have not just a prophet - dressed in similar clothes to Elijah, but also a Levite priest, performing a water ceremony - and something to do with the sins of the people. 

    We also have Jesus, a Son of David, born in Bethlehem, at the age of 30 coming to John to be baptized.  How old was David when he was coronated? How old were the OT priests when they were ordained? And interestingly, how many eldest sons of tribes not belonging to Levi were given to the Levites as priests? 

    What OT water ceremonies do we know about? And please don't think of  submersion, think of other methods?

    I suggest that for Jesus to be anointed as king - he needed to be anointed by a prophet. 
    To be anointed to be a priest - he needs to be anointed by a Levite priest. 
    To be anointed as a prophet - like Elijah to Elisha - the hands of a prophet were suitable.  

    Marry all of this with the fact that God the Father was present in voice - God the Holy Spirit ascended either as or like a dove - and we have the two fold - or three fold witness required of all of these events.  

    It was to fulfill all righteousness - 

    This is of course my opinion - and also the opinion of many others. 

    Baptists - tend to think it is about identification with humanity. And I note that this is probably the case as well. 

    What we do know is that Jesus was sinless. Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection. 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,251
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    I have no difficulty believing that there was an itinerant rabbi who headed up an end of times cult that performed a ceremony involving water. That isn't really an extraordinary claim in and of itself. As a matter of fact if you leave out all the magic stuff the story of Jesus is fairly plausible. In fact if there was no historical figure why would the authors of the new testament go to such great lengths to invent ways for him to fulfill various prophecies that required say for example Mary and Joseph to travel to Jerusalem when there is no evidence that it was a common practice at the time to go anywhere for census or taxation purposes. The Roman's were by all accounts perfectly happy to count and tax you wherever you happened to be at the time.
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,022
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I assume both John and the Essenes were drawing from the earlier tradition of the tvilah, but I can't know for sure.

    That's an interesting interpretation I had never heard before, actually - I'm surprised I haven't. You seem to be basing much of your information about John on the Gospel of Luke, though, and Luke's stories about the infancy and heredity of John do not pass some important historical criteria for me, such as multiple attestation. Luke would, imo, have ample reason to make up these stories because they strengthen John's connection, significance, and subordination to Jesus, and the fact that no other independent sources reflect these narratives makes me approach them with caution. Furthermore, if your interpretation is correct, I'm rather surprised the Gospels - all of them - are not more explicit about it in their descriptions of Jesus's baptism, as they are elsewhere explicit about things which reinforce Jesus's legitimacy, especially in relationship to the OT.

    Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection. 
    Heh. I take it that you do not hold to the Catholic view of immaculate conception, then.

    This reminds me of another interpretation I have encountered among Christians, which is that it was Jesus's human half that had to be baptized.

    But if he was born with original sin, then the implication is that he was not truly sinless until after his baptism. Could you ever see yourself accepting that? The Catholics couldn't.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,944
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen
    Perhaps he had a dirty head! 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Castin
    I assume both John and the Essenes were drawing from the earlier tradition of the tvilah, but I can't know for sure.

    That's an interesting interpretation I had never heard before, actually - I'm surprised I haven't. You seem to be basing much of your information about John on the Gospel of Luke, though, and Luke's stories about the infancy and heredity of John do not pass some important historical criteria for me, such as multiple attestation. Luke would, imo, have ample reason to make up these stories because they strengthen John's connection, significance, and subordination to Jesus, and the fact that no other independent sources reflect these narratives makes me approach them with caution. Furthermore, if your interpretation is correct, I'm rather surprised the Gospels - all of them - are not more explicit about it in their descriptions of Jesus's baptism, as they are elsewhere explicit about things which reinforce Jesus's legitimacy, especially in relationship to the OT.

    Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection. 
    Heh. I take it that you do not hold to the Catholic view of immaculate conception, then.

    This reminds me of another interpretation I have encountered among Christians, which is that it was Jesus's human half that had to be baptized.

    But if he was born with original sin, then the implication is that he was not truly sinless until after his baptism. Could you ever see yourself accepting that? The Catholics couldn't.
    I don't hold to the Catholic position of immaculate conception.  I do take the view that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. I don't think Jesus is half man and half God.  I think he is fully God and fully man. And yes, I understand that is problematic for many people.  As for Jesus being born with original sin or not, I have not yet formed a conclusion. I have traditionally believed he was not, taking the view that his Father somehow nullified original sin.  Yet, I am becoming more aware of the fact that Jesus had to be able to identify in every way as a human in all of their temptations. Not having original sin, means he is off to an advantage that others do not have. Yet, on the other hand, Adam was also created without original sin - so the comparison might be adequate since it is the contrast between the first and the final Adam which is significant in the primary sense. Nevertheless, the secondary sense is also relevant which is where I sit at the moment. 

    This of course then raises the question in your last paragraph. If Jesus was born with original sin, the implication is that he was not truly sinless? I am not so convinced of that. Yes, I follow the logic because I would insist that people sin because they are sinners - not sinners because they sin.  Yet in Christian circles we do distinguish between the sin and sins.  I have had this discussion with Brother Thomas - although as I recall not once did he ever actually engage with the discussion. I think it went over his head as most of the stuff I write. Nevertheless - it is an important distinction. And one which I will have to explore more fully. Sin is the original sin. IT is the sin which I often label TREASON and is a generic covenantal sin of the entire human population. Sins on the other hand are our personal individual sins which we commit because we are sinners. 

    Is it possible that Jesus was able to have original sin - that is - be identified with all of humanity in the generic covenantal sin of the human population, and not commit personal sins? Well the bible clearly says he was without sin. And this is also further demonstrated in the fact that he rose from the dead. Yet the further question of whether or not being born into original sin - even if he did not commit any person sins - still makes him sinful per se? And at the moment I would have to say IDK.  Hence I have not formed a conclusion in respect of whether he has original sin or not.   On this matter I am still seeking wisdom. There are many forks in the road as it were. Many of which I have not traveled down so far. Yet, like any one who knows how to read a book properly, I am suspending my judgment until I have understood the arguments.  Any person who reads a book and comes to a conclusion in the first chapter - has not properly read the book. And if they form a conclusion before they understand properly the arguments - I would say that they are insulting not only the author but themselves.  


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin


    Then why did Jesus need to be baptised? 
    Glad to see I inspire you. LOL!

    I will always give credit where its due. But get it right - it was the claim not the person.


    I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. 
    Me too.  So do  you agree then that baptism has absolutely nothing to do with "washing away our sins"?


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @secularmerlin
    . As a matter of fact if you leave out all the magic stuff the story of Jesus is fairly plausible

    It is.

    But those bits of "magic stuff" are also explainable.  Jesus didn't raise anyone from literal  death . It was a simply a raising to another degree in the movement, his movement,  i.e. those not in his circle or one of his followers or just simply non believers were simply called "the dead"  anyone wanting to be part of Jesus movement were initiated into the circle of the living hence - raised from among the dead.  There are plenty of give-away clues in the bible that show this to be the case; 
    such as ;

    "let the dead bury the dead". Luke 9:59-60.  If we are to take this literally we know it is an impossibility, so it simply has to mean something else and I believe the explanation that I have given above explains what it means  perfectly. 

    "Water into wine" is also simply another stage of initiation to another degree in the movement as was curing a "leper".  Similar to 14th century proverb " making a silk purse out of a sows ear" .
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin


    Then why did Jesus need to be baptised? 
    Glad to see I inspire you. LOL!

    I will always give credit where its due. But get it right - it was the claim not the person.


    I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King. 
    Me too.  So do  you agree then that baptism has absolutely nothing to do with "washing away our sins"?


    Well excuse me as I pick myself up from the floor.  I really am not sure what to think of you agreeing with me. It has left me confused.  

    I will still take the credit - thanks.   

    That last question is a good one.  Since I do believe Jesus did not sin, then in relation to him I would hesitatingly say it had nothing to do with washing away his sin.  Yet, in relation to John the Baptist, he did indicate that his baptism was the remission of sins. I use the word hesitatingly, because as some will have observed I am not yet convinced that Jesus was not born with original sin.  It may well have something to do with this - I honestly have not processed that thought yet.  

    But I do take the view that it was his ordination primarily -  so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion. Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me. 
  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    I would say that it's supposed to be a way of being an example. God commands that His children be baptized, so Jesus is baptized. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is made clear that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and marriage is another important part of God's plan for His children. This is biased by me being raised Mormon, who support eternal marriage as essential to obtaining the highest degree of glory, so I'm not sure how true that is for other sects.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret

    It has left me confused.  

     Well that isn't too hard to do. I have held the belief that Jesus was a priest king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem for well over 40 years.  And nothing you have said influenced my belief in any way.  Unfortunately there is no clear biblical evidence for my beliefs apart from the royal gifts said to have been presented at his birth and Pilate insisting on what should be written of the head board of the cross at the crucifixion. 


    Yet, in relation to John the Baptist, he did indicate that his baptism was the remission of sins. 

    Not just John . Stop being so sly and disingenuous. The bible makes it clear what baptism is all about. Or are you going to deny this: 

    “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)

    So you see. The bible is clear .  It is all to do with cleansing of ones sins yet here we have the son of god himself insisting John baptise him.  WHY!?


    I use the word hesitatingly, because as some will have observed I am not yet convinced that Jesus was not born with original sin.

     Yes you sound confused again. You see either he was sinless or he wasn't. Either way it makes a nonsense of the Christian belief that baptism is a ritual of "washing away sins",


      It may well have something to do with this - I honestly have not processed that thought yet.  

     Yes its a bit of a stumper for the church isn't it. I have asked many Christians this simple question and is all I get is crickets.  

    But I do take the view that it was his ordination primarily - 

    So do I , but the bible contradicts that view and gives no indication that this was the anointing of a king priest as I believe.


    so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion.

     But then you are going to ignore what the bible actually states concerning the ritual of baptism and why it is performed? I have shown you from your own scriptures what the bible states. Do you accept  their explantation for this ritual or not?



    Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me. 

     So you don't know why Jesus was baptised although you have insisted he was sinless? here #102



  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @K_Michael
    God commands that His children be baptized

    Does he?  Can you show us this command?  It is odd that such an important commandment is not listed along with  the other commandments brought down by Moses. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,944
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen @Tradesecret
    I thought that my double entendre was reasonably witty.

    Did you get it?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @zedvictor4


    Did you get it?

    Yep

  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    --> @Stephen
    Mark 16:16
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    It has left me confused.  

     Well that isn't too hard to do. I have held the belief that Jesus was a priest king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem for well over 40 years.  And nothing you have said influenced my belief in any way.  Unfortunately there is no clear biblical evidence for my beliefs apart from the royal gifts said to have been presented at his birth and Pilate insisting on what should be written of the head board of the cross at the crucifixion. 
    Hello Stephen, I am trying very hard here not to throw barbs at you.  My confusion was based  however not in your wittiness but in your agreement with me. I found that troubling per se.  I really hope that my influence has not helped you in your beliefs - I would not like to be cast as a cause of such nonsense. Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there and it is clear. Otherwise people like you and me would not have come to it. That others miss it is neither here nor there. For any one to come to it is NOT accidental. 

    Yet, in relation to John the Baptist, he did indicate that his baptism was the remission of sins. 

    Not just John . Stop being so sly and disingenuous. The bible makes it clear what baptism is all about. Or are you going to deny this: 

    “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)

    So you see. The bible is clear .  It is all to do with cleansing of ones sins yet here we have the son of god himself insisting John baptise him.  WHY!?

    With respect, if you wish to dialogue with me, please stop accusing me of trying to be sly or lying or whatever. I seriously am not. I have no agendas or whatever. I really only want to know the truth - so your constant accusations really do more harm than good.  

    I certainly accept that baptism in the main is about repentance from sins.  It is also about initiation into the church.    Yet from my point of view baptism is in the main talking about God uniting himself with humanity - as it was demonstrated at Pentecost. This is why I am passionate about the mode- a pouring out from above and not a submersion. It is why I agree with infant baptism and not only an adult conversion. It is much broader than this. Yet and I think it is important because all of the gospel record it - John's baptism was nothing compared to Jesus' baptism. 
    I use the word hesitatingly, because as some will have observed I am not yet convinced that Jesus was not born with original sin.

     Yes you sound confused again. You see either he was sinless or he wasn't. Either way it makes a nonsense of the Christian belief that baptism is a ritual of "washing away sins",
    LOL @ you.  Baptism has a place for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus being ordained as king priest and prophet does not automatically mean that baptism in the ordinary sense in invalid.  I am not confused about John's baptism.  My confusion of which I have openly revealed is about whether Jesus had original sin or not.   I know Jesus was sinless - so that is not the question in my mind. The bible clearly reveals he had no sin - indeed as does his resurrection.  My question is about whether original sin. How it impacted Jesus is very much how it would impact us.  

      It may well have something to do with this - I honestly have not processed that thought yet.  

     Yes its a bit of a stumper for the church isn't it. I have asked many Christians this simple question and is all I get is crickets.  
    I love how you take my confusion as a stumper.  I admit a weakness and rather than seeing it as me being honest - you just try and stomp on me.  Gee I am pleased I don't share your worldview.  I personally don't think my own confusion is representative of the church as a whole so I would not in honesty be trying to take it there. My own views about Jesus and original sin are personal.  I am a person who takes 

    But I do take the view that it was his ordination primarily - 

    So do I , but the bible contradicts that view and gives no indication that this was the anointing of a king priest as I believe.
    On the contrary.  Hebrews clearly reveals otherwise as does Acts which talk of his kingship and Revelation of his prophetic nature. 

    so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion.

     But then you are going to ignore what the bible actually states concerning the ritual of baptism and why it is performed? I have shown you from your own scriptures what the bible states. Do you accept  their explantation for this ritual or not?

    Not at all. Why would you take such a view? Baptism has more than one purpose. 

    Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me. 

     So you don't know why Jesus was baptised although you have insisted he was sinless? here #102

    I am not a know it all.  As I indicated at the beginning of this topic - I agree he is sinless and  that his baptism is for ordination. This does not however change the meaning for other people. 
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,022
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I don't hold to the Catholic position of immaculate conception.  I do take the view that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. I don't think Jesus is half man and half God.  I think he is fully God and fully man. And yes, I understand that is problematic for many people.  As for Jesus being born with original sin or not, I have not yet formed a conclusion. I have traditionally believed he was not, taking the view that his Father somehow nullified original sin.  Yet, I am becoming more aware of the fact that Jesus had to be able to identify in every way as a human in all of their temptations. Not having original sin, means he is off to an advantage that others do not have. Yet, on the other hand, Adam was also created without original sin - so the comparison might be adequate since it is the contrast between the first and the final Adam which is significant in the primary sense. Nevertheless, the secondary sense is also relevant which is where I sit at the moment. 

    This of course then raises the question in your last paragraph. If Jesus was born with original sin, the implication is that he was not truly sinless? I am not so convinced of that. Yes, I follow the logic because I would insist that people sin because they are sinners - not sinners because they sin.  Yet in Christian circles we do distinguish between the sin and sins.  I have had this discussion with Brother Thomas - although as I recall not once did he ever actually engage with the discussion. I think it went over his head as most of the stuff I write. Nevertheless - it is an important distinction. And one which I will have to explore more fully. Sin is the original sin. IT is the sin which I often label TREASON and is a generic covenantal sin of the entire human population. Sins on the other hand are our personal individual sins which we commit because we are sinners. 

    Is it possible that Jesus was able to have original sin - that is - be identified with all of humanity in the generic covenantal sin of the human population, and not commit personal sins? Well the bible clearly says he was without sin. And this is also further demonstrated in the fact that he rose from the dead. Yet the further question of whether or not being born into original sin - even if he did not commit any person sins - still makes him sinful per se? And at the moment I would have to say IDK.  Hence I have not formed a conclusion in respect of whether he has original sin or not.   On this matter I am still seeking wisdom. There are many forks in the road as it were. Many of which I have not traveled down so far. Yet, like any one who knows how to read a book properly, I am suspending my judgment until I have understood the arguments.  Any person who reads a book and comes to a conclusion in the first chapter - has not properly read the book. And if they form a conclusion before they understand properly the arguments - I would say that they are insulting not only the author but themselves.  
    I hope you find the wisdom you seek.

    Have you considered that Jesus was born with original sin, but was purified of it by God sometime after his birth? After resisting the temptations of Satan, for instance, or at his baptism? It would mean he was still sinless (both in the sense of sins and of sin) at the time of his resurrection.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @K_Michael
    Mark 16:16

    Mark 16: 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

    What's your point.   Jesus is believed to be the  son of god and god at the same time and had never committed a single sin according to Christians  #102.   Mark 16:16 doesn't explain why Jesus needed to be baptised by John the Baptist?
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Because I take the view that the evidence is there and it is clear.

    OK then let us see it. Lets us see what you say is evidence that Jesus was baptised Priest and king by John the baptist.  I have highlighted what I believe are   two indicators that maybe point to Jesus being a Priest King in my first response to you here #13. But I have not shown anywhere that John baptised/ anointed Jesus a  king or priest as you are now suggestion was the reason for his baptism. 


    Otherwise people like you and me would not have come to it.
    But it wasn't scripture that brought me to my conclusions and neither was it you.


    For any one to come to it is NOT accidental. 

    Maybe not, but there is not a single piece of solid evidence in the scriptures that Jesus - who is also god according to Christians  - was baptised a king or priest. The scriptures make it clear that the reason for baptism is  "washing away ones sins" .


    I certainly accept that baptism in the main is about repentance from sins. 

    So what sins had Jesus repented?


    John's baptism was nothing compared to Jesus' baptism. 

    That is irrelevant to this thread . With that said, no one knows where John got his authority to go around baptising and no one knows who baptised John either.


     I personally don't think my own confusion is representative of the church as a whole.

    Maybe not. But they - that is every christian and  priest , like you, also appear confused when asked why did Jesus need baptising if he was sinless?  What sins had he committed?  and what sins did have to repent? 



    so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion.

     But then you are going to ignore what the bible actually states concerning the ritual of baptism and why it is performed? I have shown you from your own scriptures what the bible states. Do you accept  their explanation for this ritual or not?

    Not at all. Why would you take such a view? Baptism has more than one purpose. 

    Who says so,!?  You?  Or is  this you again attempting to rewrite the scripture and then discuss what the scriptures do not actually say?

    Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me. 

     So you don't know why Jesus was baptised although you have insisted he was sinless? here #102

    I am not a know it all. 

    Then you should have simply admitted that you didn't know.


    As I indicated at the beginning of this topic - I agree he is sinless .......

     Then why did he need to be baptised? No one seems to know. 


    This does not however change the meaning for other people. 

    "The meaning" for Christians is all the same. The bible makes "THE MEANING " clear,  it is to "wash away ones sins" You don't know why Jesus was baptised but insist that he was sinless, you are simply trying to make excuses for the obvious contradiction. 

    You don't have an answer and I accept that. 


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,022
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @K_Michael
    I would say that it's supposed to be a way of being an example. God commands that His children be baptized, so Jesus is baptized. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is made clear that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and marriage is another important part of God's plan for His children. This is biased by me being raised Mormon, who support eternal marriage as essential to obtaining the highest degree of glory, so I'm not sure how true that is for other sects.
    Which scroll was this? My understanding was that the Dead Sea Scrolls make no clear mention of Jesus at all, much less that he married Mary Magdalene. I'm not aware of any ancient sources that clearly say Mary was his wife, in fact. The closest I can think of is the Gospel of Philip, which says he loved her more than his other disciples and often kissed her - but that doesn't amount to marriage. And the so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" is thought to be a forgery.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,468
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Castin
    much less that he married Mary Magdalene.


    Isn't one of the requirements of being a rabbi is to be married?


    Jesus is called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21, and by Judas Iscariot in Mark 14:45 by Nathanael in John 1:49. 

    And wasn't there a direct instruction from god himself to " go forth and multiply"?  And wouldn't this then mean that  said rabbi/ Jesus also had children?

    But none of this is answering the the question in the OP , is it?


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,594
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Stephen @Tradesecret



    .
    Stephen,

    TRADESECRET QUOTE: "Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin"

    Barring the fact that ol' Tradesecret is RUNNING AWAY again from my posts to him, I know, what's new, anyway, how can Jesus in His Triune Doctrine not have committed any sins?  As if Jesus' presence in the Old Testament wasn't sinful enough with his brutal killings of the innocents, how about the time in the New Testament when Jesus said this to His disciples: JESUS SAID: “I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.….” ( Luke 19:26-28)

    Jesus must have had enough of His murdering ways, as Yahweh God incarnate,  in the Old Testament, so by proxy He wants His disciples to murder for Him! LOL. Even when uttering such a statement from Jesus as shown, IT IS A SIN to want others do your bidding for you in the way of murder!  

    Yes, we know, this parable is related to Jesus' 2nd coming, it is attributed to Jesus, and it is spoken by Jesus, nonetheless, it is SINFUL to state that Jesus wants His disciples to murder His enemies, especially when Jesus says to love your enemies, what a hypocritical irony from the mouth of Jesus ( Matthew 5:44-45 )!

    Stephen, ol' Tradesecret is not himself subsequent to me easily Bible Slapping him Silly®️ relative to his outright biblical ignorance in a few threads of late, therefore maybe give him some time to recuperate before you do the same?  :)


    .
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,022
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Stephen
    much less that he married Mary Magdalene.


    Isn't one of the requirements of being a rabbi is to be married?


    Jesus is called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21, and by Judas Iscariot in Mark 14:45 by Nathanael in John 1:49. 

    And wasn't there a direct instruction from god himself to " go forth and multiply"?  And wouldn't this then mean that  said rabbi/ Jesus also had children?

    But none of this is answering the the question in the OP , is it?
    Jesus eschewed many traditions, so I don't think his being called rabbi guarantees his being married. He gave indication that he thought his ministry was an urgent mission that took precedence over such things as marriage and family.

    Also I already answered the OP so now I have full license to frolic off-topic. Frolic, frolic, frolic.

    Plus you can't really expect me to just leave it alone when someone says the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned Jesus, can you? I mean, what? Do you have any idea how much I would love it if the Essenes had written about Jesus? The only other non-Christian sources on him are Tacitus, who gives us zero information about him besides that he was crucified by Pilate, and Josephus - whose writings the Christians fucked with, so there's always this element of doubt for me about how much he really said. Other than them our main sources on Jesus are the Gospels, which are overflowing with pious fiction and super frustrating as historical sources. I'm just saying, if there was a third non-Christian source on Jesus I would be fucking ecstatic.