The Case of John the Baptist

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen

    We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. That sounds pretty fair , reasonable and honest  .  After all, who would have the audacity to call others to have their sins washed away  yet not have had their own sins washed away first?  

     And we can with some confidence assume this to be correct because John the Baptist was baptising well before Jesus appeared to John on the banks of the river Jordan where it is said John had been baptising and calling multitudes to "repent their sins"! As the bible explains often enough. 

     "And he [John] came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"Luke 3:3

    repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) . 
    "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)
    "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)
    "baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)

    But this raises so many questions that it is hard to know where to start.

     It is not known who gave John the authority to perform this baptismal rite of washing away sins and it seems no one else knew either except for maybe Jesus, and he wasn't saying ?

     What he did appear to do though was confirm,  in a fashion,  that John himself was indeed baptised or was he  only  confirming that John had only the qualifications to baptise? Or was this just fancy word play from a man that specialised in the non answer?
     The temple priest had approached Jesus asking  "where he had got his authority to go around healing the sick and curing the blind?" ( when they were perfectly happy begging).
     
    Read for yourself>>

    23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority does thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
    24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
    25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? Matthew 21:23-25..

    So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?

  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,485
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Stephen @Tradesecret



    .
    Stephen, 

    Sorry to interject into your thread about John the Baptist.

    As I have mentioned to the Bible disgusting woman Tradesecret, I will be off line again because I will be visiting an Indian Reservation to spread the TRUE words of Jesus the Christ, even though I do not have a reservation per se to do this biblical act, it is out in the boondocks with no cell or internet connection.

    Upon my return, maybe we can discuss Tradesecrets change from a man to a woman as blatantly shown in their two contradicting biographies upon DEBATEART that I have copies of, of which, maybe Tradesecret had an ungodly sex change and therefore ruined her Temple of God's image? "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple." (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

    I have addressed Tradesecret wholeheartedly in my untimely departure at this time in the link below.

    See you on the flip side Hell bound Atheist!   :)



    .
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen


    Cleansing in water....What a bizarre thing to do....Who ever thought of that.....Give the guy a certificate.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,098
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    This John bloke found a way to make a buck or two.


    He would of been ever so happy the day when Pepole started calling him " John the Baptist "   
    Orrrrrrrrrr 
    Did he give himself that title. ?  ( in real life )
    The answer to this will give you the mind set of JOHN THE BAPTIST,   / formaly  John the walk a rounder 
    Or John the farmer.  Or   That Bastard john. 

    Picture him once saying.  Just  all me John will be fine. 

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.
    Who said this and where was it said? 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.
    Who said this and where was it said? 

    Responding to a question with a question of your own may well have worked in Jesus' time, princess, but not in this /our, day &  age.
    You can either answer the questions or simply leave the thread. <<<<<  that is a polite request.


    Here have another go:  Jesus said;  "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25..

    So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @zedvictor4
    Cleansing in water....What a bizarre thing to do....Who ever thought of that.....Give the guy a certificate.

    Maybe they did, Vic. I hadn't thought of that. but the bible, like many other things is silent on the matter.   But  this would prove his credentials  wouldn't it.. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull @Tradesecret
    Debs correct. 

    Clever people, gullible people....It's the ongoing story of mankind.

    Clever and gullible might at first seem paradoxical, but no, it's the ongoing story of mankind.

    Dismiss the obvious in pursuit of the fantastic.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen
    Yep the bible is silent on a lot of things....Which in fairness is no more than one would expect from such a naive hypothesis.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions. Ok I will leave. You are not a teacher. You don't have an answer. You just make it up. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions.


     On the contrary. I am inviting you and others to answer  questions.



    You are not a teacher.

     I know, and that is why I ask loads of questions. And pose them especially of those that should know the answerers.


    You don't have an answer.


     That's right, I don't.  And  that is why I have started a thread asking questions. In fact the majority of my threads are question based.


    You just make it up. 

    What have I made up? I have quoted Jesus who appears to confirm  that John the Baptist was baptised AND/ OR that he had the authority to perform the Baptismal rite?

    Are you saying that I made this up????? >>> Jesus said;  "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.. ??????

    Does this or does it not confirm that John was baptised? I have made it clear that I am not sure but it appears to suggest that he was.

    So you go sulk and ponder.  And then come back when you have dried your tears and feel grown up enough to take on this ambiguous verse from Jesus himself.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions. I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything. 

    I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that you need to be baptized to baptize someone else.  Who baptized John? Who baptized Aaron? 

    For the record - you might be correct - but produce the evidence first.  I do not think that Jesus' words imply that John had been baptized. I think he is asking about John's baptisms of other people - of whether they are godly or not? Not as it seems you are suggesting - of his own person baptism. 

    So yes, I think you are making it up. Your post starts with

    We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206
    Who told you? 

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    This John bloke found a way to make a buck or two.


    He would of been ever so happy the day when Pepole started calling him " John the Baptist "   
    Orrrrrrrrrr 
    Did he give himself that title. ?  ( in real life )
    The answer to this will give you the mind set of JOHN THE BAPTIST,   / formaly  John the walk a rounder 
    Or John the farmer.  Or   That Bastard john. 

    Picture him once saying.  Just  all me John will be fine. 

    Pope on a Rope! Wash with it and go straight to heaven!
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    Is 20£ too high an asking price?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tradesecret
    Gods are made up.

    Religious myths are largely made up.

    Everything that you and all of us continue to contrive, is made up.

    Data in, data assimilation, data resequencing, data out = making it up.

    Accusing Stephen of making it up is a very childish argument.


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret

    I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions.

    Is it any wonder that you don't have the slightest idea what is going on in these gospels when you don't understand a simple either or request.

    At #6 above I simply request that : 
    You can either answer the questions or simply leave the thread. <<<<<  that is a polite request.#6

    I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything. 

    Not at all. But you seem to be of the belief that responding to questions with questions of your own is somehow answering the/my original question. This is how you Christian cowards always operate when you want to derail a thread or are simply stumped for answers.

    I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that you need to be baptized to baptize someone else. 

     That is the reason for these inquiries that you have failed  time and time again to address.

    Who baptized John?

    No one knows, especially you.  I am simply  suggesting that it is not unreasonable to believe that one would have been baptised and had their own sins washed away before taking it upon themselves to proceed to wash away the sins of others. do you not see the hypocrisy should one call another to cleans their sins without having their own sinse cleansed away? Of course you don't. You Christian cowards live  and thrive on hypocrisy alone .

    For the record - you might be correct - but produce the evidence first. 

    Well Jesus appears to make suggestion - ambiguously as usual - that John was indeed baptised in the verse that YOU have accused me of "making up".  here is a reminder :


    You just make it up. 

    What have I made up? I have quoted Jesus who appears to confirm  that John the Baptist was baptised AND/ OR that he had the authority to perform the Baptismal rite?

    Are you saying that I made this up????? >>> Jesus said;  "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.. ??????

     So did I make up that biblical verse or not? 



    I do not think that Jesus' words imply that John had been baptized.

    Ok then what do his words imply? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FKN THREAD!


    I think he is asking about John's baptisms of other people - of whether they are godly or not?


    Well the conversation is initiated by the priests isn't it?  And what are they asking about?   You want leading by the nose every step of the way don't you.

    LOOOOOOOK>>>>>>Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" Matthew 21:23   So we can CLEARLY see the conversation is all to do with AUTHORITY.



     SO  keeping in mind that Jesus  doesn't even  ask  - "by what authority " did John have to baptise,   but simply asks instead  about  "THE baptism of JOHN "
    >>>>>>>>"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.  What are we to make of it.  AND AS I  ASKED in the op POST # 1; #1

    So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?#1

     This is why it is ambiguous. This is why I have asked those questions and this is the whole fkn reason for this thread. 

    Not as it seems you are suggesting - of his own person baptism. 

     Where have I done that?  I don't know either way. This is the whole reason for this thread. But seeing that the conversation started by the priests was  about AUTHORITY,  I believe it is reasonable to assume that Jesus asked about John's AUTHORITY.  

    BTW didn't you tell us that  "John says that his  baptism was deficient". ? Yes here we are:





    Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming.
    So this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you confirming for us that John was Baptised. I mean, would John talk about his own BAPTISM, if he hadn't even been baptised!? And isn't Jesus asking about "John's baptism" and where it came from? Matthew 21:23-25.

    And didn't Jesus baptise his disciples and only then tell them to go out and do the same?  and don't you also make yet another claim that you have failed to prove? yes here we are:
     
    Tradesecret  In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized. #13

    No it doesn't and you haven't and   cannot, prove otherwise.

    And isn't it you that has reasonably suggested that one ought to be baptised themselves before being able to baptise another? Yes here we are: 
     
    #29 I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves.
    So in the same post #29   you confirm John was baptised and that it is reasonable to suggest one should be baptised before baptising another. 

     
    So yes, I think you are making it up.

    WTF HAVE I MADE UP!



    Your post starts with We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206
    Who told you? 


     I see, you are pounding the words >>>>told by <<<<<. maybe I should have chosen my words a little more careful when it comes to you and your understanding of … well... just about anything.

    I believe it was YOU that suggested this , or are you going to deny it. It matters not to me.  Because it has nothing to do with the crux of the thread.

     Maybe I should have chosen the words  _ it has been suggested by tradesecret?  as I have shown above but it matters not, does it!?  Because it is as you suggest, a reasonable biblical assumption given the biblical  evidence , and from your  own fkn words !!!!!


     



    In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires  a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.  
    This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^is also you.





    Just thought I'd  let you know. 

    .New Living Translation bible asks ; “Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?”

    Contemporary English Version bible  askes  "Who gave John the right to baptize"? 

    There are other modern biblical examples too.




  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,626
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Stephen
    So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
    It's a question the priests were unwilling to answer.

    Jesus knew they would be unwilling to answer the question and simply asked it in order to avoid answering the question posed to him.

    Jesus basically said, "When you ask me a trick question, I will ask you a trick question.  My answer will be the same as yours."

    The "true" answer is "they were both granted authority directly from YHWH", but according to the law, only the high-priest could communicate directly with "YHWH" and so anyone claiming they were granted authority directly from "YHWH" could be charged with blasphemy.

    Jesus knew the priests weren't ready to charge John with blasphemy (perhaps due to John's popularity), and made a bet that they wouldn't charge him either if he pointed that out.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @3RU7AL
    So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
    It's a question the priests were unwilling to answer.
    That's not the point of the thread or the question. The point is that Jesus is, one way or another confirming John had been baptised.  But did this also then qualify John to baptise others? And would he have had to have been baptised himself before being qualified to baptising others? 


    Jesus knew they would be unwilling to answer the question and simply asked it in order to avoid answering the question posed to him.

     Its not about the questions of the priests or Jesus . It is to do with the qualifications of John.



    Jesus basically said, "When you ask me a trick question, I will ask you a trick question.  My answer will be the same as yours."

     Yes I got that .  But as I keep saying, my question is solely to do with Johns qualifications. I take the opinion that Jesus is telling us that John was indeed baptised.
    But as I have explained a few times now. The verse is ambiguous. 

    The "true" answer is "they were both granted authority directly from YHWH", but according to the law, only the high-priest could communicate directly with "YHWH" and so anyone claiming they were granted authority directly from "YHWH" could be charged with blasphemy.
     Yes I understand that  the story in general was all supposed to have been about setting a  "trap" for Jesus into committing blasphemy. . 

    And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).   So tell me, would it also be a requirement that John needed to be baptised himself before preforming the baptismal rite on others?  We have to remember that John had been performing the baptismal rite on the Jordan well before Jesus came into the picture.





  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,626
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Stephen
    And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
    You've just answered your own question.

    In all likelihood, Jesus took John for just another popular Jewish heretic (probably more popular than Jesus at the time).

    Jesus, who was also a popular Jewish heretic, took advantage of an opportunity to increase his own popularity with a publicity stunt.

    John (correctly) concluded that his own popularity (and historical profile) would get a decent boost from this charismatic traveling magician (Jesus).

    It's kind of like when a moderately popular yootoober invites another moderately popular yootoober on their channel in order for both to get a chance to cross-pollenate their subscribers.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @3RU7AL
    And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
    You've just answered your own question.

     How so?

    In all likelihood, Jesus took John for just another popular Jewish heretic (probably more popular than Jesus at the time).
     Speculation. Not that it matters. It has nothing to do with my question of authority and was it a prerequisite for John or any one, to be baptised themselves before having the authority to perform the baptismal rite on anyone else?  <<<<<<<<<<<< The answer to that is either yes or no.  But the theists seem to be giving the questions a swerve.


    Jesus, who was also a popular Jewish heretic, took advantage of an opportunity to increase his own popularity with a publicity stunt.
    Maybe, but its Irrelevant to the thread.

    John (correctly) concluded that his own popularity (and historical profile) would get a decent boost from this charismatic traveling magician (Jesus).
    Well I believe they were actually rivals. I also happen to believe that they were half brothers fathered by the same man  (the acting Gabriel).  I also believe that  Jesus and or his followers were responsible for the death of John the Baptist.. But all this is speculation, and I have no evidence and none of this has anything to do with this thread or my questions.

    It's kind of like when a moderately popular yootoober invites another moderately popular yootoober on their channel in order for both to get a chance to cross-pollenate their subscribers.

     There maybe some truth in that.  But, like I have  said;  I believe that they were deadly rivals. As always seemed the 'tradition' in those ancient times. 


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,626
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Stephen
    And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
    You've just answered your own question.
     How so?
    John was presumably authorized (if not physically baptized) by "YHWH" (confirmed by Jesus' endorsement).
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,626
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Stephen
    I believe that they were deadly rivals. As always seemed the 'tradition' in those ancient times. 
    Rivals cross-promote all the time.

    Nothing gets more attention than a good flame-war.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,326
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @3RU7AL
    And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
    You've just answered your own question.
     How so?
    John was presumably authorized (if not physically baptized) by "YHWH" (confirmed by Jesus' endorsement).


    You/we have already addressed authority. 

     I am sorry but this goes nowhere in answering if or not it is a prerequisite for one to be baptised  THEMSELVES BEFORE baptising another? 

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @zedvictor4
    Gods are made up.

    Religious myths are largely made up.

    Everything that you and all of us continue to contrive, is made up.

    Data in, data assimilation, data resequencing, data out = making it up.

    Accusing Stephen of making it up is a very childish argument.

    Perhaps it is childish. But if he refuses to answer the question but expects others only to answer questions - and never produces the evidence. And refuses to publish his sources - then I am quite entitled to say he makes it up. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Jesus is not asking about John's baptism - in the sense of who baptised John? If we are correct in assuming that the OT Levites baptized or annointed him (John) a priest in accordance with the OT Law - then it is a non-question and would make the discussion between Jesus and the pharisees nonsensical. The pharisees ought to have known how John was baptised and by what authority he did things? So they would have answered Jesus by saying - it was divine - or from heaven because the OT law came from God. They would not have any qualms in answering the question - so the discussion that led them to say nothing - because they were afraid of the crowds would make no sense. Interestingly they did not even consider his priesthood background - just his alleged status as a prophet.  They could have quickly just dismissed Jesus by saying - John was a Levite, his authority comes from God with his being annointed by the priests as witness of the same in accordance with his tribe. Hence - why I say this was not Jesus endorsing John's authority as a priest. And certainly not referring to his annointing. 

    It only makes sense in the context of them questioning Jesus' authority - Why could Jesus go into the temple and cleanse it? Who gave him that authority? Yes, Jesus seems to tie it to John the Baptist and his baptism? Did he tie it to John's Levitical priesthood? If so, it is not clear for those listening.  The Pharisees did not connect Jesus to John's personal baptism. IT did not even enter their brains. Certainly did not come out of their mouths. It makes sense that they were talking about what he did - the baptizer - his type of baptism of the people of Israel including Jesus. 

    And if the Pharisees did not connect John with the Levitical priesthood, it is quite possible that no one else would have either. Jesus would have known his background - because of his family connections.  John the B appeared as it were - straight out of the history pages of Israel - looking like Elijah.  The people saw him as a prophet. The Pharisees and religious leaders of Israel probably saw him as a curiosity more than anything else.  I can't see how it in any way endorses or confirms how John was baptised or by whom he was baptised. 

    In fact the ordination of a Levitical priest was not simply water and was never called a baptism.  It contained oil as well according to the OT passages.  I link it with Jesus - because his  baptism is different to the other people baptised.  None of the others were called the Son of God - none of the others were witnessed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' ordination was significantly different to the OT Levitical ordinations in many ways.