# Odd question from a new old guy



## earl (Jun 15, 2010)

At what point did the New testament take affect ? In other words when did it change from under law to under grace ? At Christ's birth or his death or somewhere in between ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 15, 2010)

The new covenant went into effect when Jesus died on the cross.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 15, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> The new covenant went into effect when Jesus died on the cross.



Yes.
Peter's sermon in Acts 2 opened the doors of Christ church.  At least there's no evidence of anything else between Jesus' death and Peter's sermon.
Prior the Acts 2 the kingdom of heaven was referred to as being near, or 'at hand'.  As of Chapt 2 the kingdom was being added to by God Himself.


----------



## Lowjack (Jun 15, 2010)

Oi vey!


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 15, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Yes.
> Peter's sermon in Acts 2 opened the doors of Christ church.  At least there's no evidence of anything else between Jesus' death and Peter's sermon.
> Prior the Acts 2 the kingdom of heaven was referred to as being near, or 'at hand'.  As of Chapt 2 the kingdom was being added to by God Himself.



Now that's preaching!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really.


----------



## earl (Jun 15, 2010)

OK . Now for the direction I was headed in. What was the point of the baptisms that John the Baptist was performing and why was God baptized by him ?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 15, 2010)

earl said:


> What was the point of the baptisms that John the Baptist was performing and why was God baptized by him ?




This is the Orthodox perspective (taken from two different websites):


"... John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, and the people came to have their sins washed away by the water. Since Jesus had no sin, but was God incarnate, his baptism had the effect not of washing away Jesus' sins, but of blessing the water, making it holy—and with it all of creation, so that it may be used fully for its original created purpose to be an instrument of life."

"It is the faith of Christians that since the Son of God has taken human flesh and has been immersed in the streams of the Jordan, all matter is sanctified and made pure in him, purged of its death-dealing qualities inherited from the devil and the wickedness of men. In the Lord's epiphany all creation becomes good again, indeed "very good," the way that God himself made it and proclaimed it to be in the beginning when "the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2) and when the "Breath of Life" was breathing in man and in everything that God made (Gen 1:30; 2:7)."


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 15, 2010)

earl said:


> OK . Now for the direction I was headed in. What was the point of the baptisms that John the Baptist was performing and why was God baptized by him ?




*What was the point of the baptisms that John the Baptist was performing.
Everything John did was done to prepare the people for the arrive and ministry of the Messiah.  John's baptism added no one to Christ's church nor did it save them.
Later, during Paul's journey's, Paul came across a few men who had only been baptized by John's baptism.  Paul insisted on baptising these men into the name of Christ.

*why was God(Jesus) baptized by him....
John wondered that very same thing.  Jesus' answer was:  "to fulfill all righteousness".  My take on Jesus' comment is this:  "Baptize me because it's what My Father wants".  After the baptism, God spoke and said:  "The is My Son in whom I am pleased".  God(father) was obviously pleased that His Son fulfilled all righteousness.


----------



## earl (Jun 15, 2010)

Sounds different than baptizing in the name of the father ,the son, and the holy ghost .

''Everything John did was done to prepare the people for the arrive and ministry of the Messiah. John's baptism added no one to Christ's church nor did it save them.''
That doesn't make sense to me. How could he bapstize Christ in Christ's name ?

CPF , is that the origin of Holy Water ? Also , I didn't get the Genesis part.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 15, 2010)

earl said:


> Sounds different than baptizing in the name of the father ,the son, and the holy ghost .
> 
> ''Everything John did was done to prepare the people for the arrive and ministry of the Messiah. John's baptism added no one to Christ's church nor did it save them.''
> That doesn't make sense to me. How could he bapstize Christ in Christ's name ?
> ...



He didn't baptize Jesus in Christ's name.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 16, 2010)

earl said:


> CPF , is that the origin of Holy Water ?



Yes.




earl said:


> Also , I didn't get the Genesis part.



They're just making the point that Jesus redeemed the material world and restored it to its previous perfect state when God created it in Genesis.


----------



## earl (Jun 16, 2010)

Couple more ?
If not baptized in Christ's name , why was he baptized ? If for repentance , why since he was sinless ?

CPF, That doesn't make sense to me either. The material world wasn't changed that I can find.

So far ,holy water is all I get out of his baptism. He was going to heaven anyway .


----------



## SneekEE (Jun 16, 2010)

Earl John asked Jesus why He needed to be baptized at all, Jesus reply is found in Mat 3:13-15. Also He was fullfilling the legal requirements of entering the preisthood, He  was priest after the order of Melchizedek.


----------



## earl (Jun 16, 2010)

I did not know that baptism was a requirement for a Jewish priest . Interesting. I'll have to think on that for a spell. Sounds like that would mean Jesus was preaching Judaism rather than a ''new'' religion .

Matthew 3:1 says John was baptizing for repentance. If Christ was sinless ,why would he get baptized ?

All the reason s for John doing the baptizing were for repentance . Still not sure about him being a priest . Is Christian baptism just a holdover from Judaism ?


----------



## SneekEE (Jun 16, 2010)

It was'nt a new relegion it was part of the process of fullfilling Gods plan of salvation. Google Mikveh, I did a quick search and found this page that talks about Jesus Baptisim into the preisthood. Havnt read much of it, about to rush to the hospitial to see a freind who is about to become a father. Any way this article starts out like this...

As I noted in an earlier article in Rite Reasons, the Church Fathers Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine all claimed that baptism inducts the baptized person into membership in the royal priesthood of the church,

you can find the complete article here..
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-45-jesus-baptism-into-priesthood/

not sure how correct it is, havnt had time to read it all but at first glance it appears to be a better explanation to what I was talking about as far as Jesus baptisim and Him starting His role as priest.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 16, 2010)

earl said:


> OK . Now for the direction I was headed in. What was the point of the baptisms that John the Baptist was performing and why was God baptized by him ?



Since I don't believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation, my response is going to be different than some above.


Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change.  Always has been, always will be.

Therefore, the point of baptisms that John was doing was to express this and have people show their inward change in an outward manner.

Why did Jesus get baptized? To be an example to us of what we need to do.


----------



## earl (Jun 16, 2010)

Sneek ,that was a lot of writing but in the long run I think it's a bit of a stretch. Do you have any scripture about Christ becoming a priest and subsequent baptism ?

rj, what about all the other things he did  ? Should they be taken as examples also ? I hate to sound like a broken record ,but if John was baptizing for repentance ...


----------



## SneekEE (Jun 16, 2010)

Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5: 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 

 6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 




 His priesthood is situated in reference to the ritual service of the priests of the old covenant, which he surpasses as priest and victim. God's eternal design which provides for the institution of the priesthood in the history of the covenant is fulfilled in Christ.

According to the Letter to the Hebrews, the messianic task is symbolized by the figure of Melchizedek. There we read that by God's will "another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life" (Heb 7:15). It is therefore an eternal priesthood (cf. Heb 7:3-24).

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. (Hebrews 4:14).



Earl the most obvious and easiest answer as to why Jesus was baptised is simply obediance, and as an example to us. But for a better understanding I sugest you start studing the old testimont presisthood and what all they had to do, and why, in order to be a preist. The bible teaches He was a preist, the were baptised as was He, they were annointed, as was He, they gave sacrificeses, He was the sacrifice.


----------



## earl (Jun 16, 2010)

Other than prophesy to be fulfilled , I would think that the priesthood as taught in the OT went by the wayside with the teachings of the NT. The disciples were not priests that I can find reference to so I'm not sure what the requirements of priesthood have to do with Christ .
And if baptism was a requirement of priesthood , what does it have to do with Christianity ?


----------



## SneekEE (Jun 16, 2010)

Yes Earl the deciples were preists... ordained by Christ.

Mark 3: 14And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 

John 15
14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 
 15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 
 16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jun 16, 2010)

Boy's I have got to tell you, even though I don't post alot anymore, I have flat  out enjoyed the conversation and the tone I see here in this thread and the one on Repentance. Different viewpoints have been discussed, put forward and agreed on, disagreed on and all seems to be patient, understanding and said with Love.

Heck, ya'll are making me dig deep and study hard and for that I thank you!

Proverbs 27: (ESV)
17 Iron sharpens iron,
and one man sharpens another.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2010)

earl said:


> rj, what about all the other things he did  ? Should they be taken as examples also ? I hate to sound like a broken record ,but if John was baptizing for repentance ...



Where does it say that he was baptizing for repentance?



earl said:


> Matthew 3:1 says John was baptizing for repentance. If Christ was sinless ,why would he get baptized ?



You mention Matt 3:1...but I don't see anywhere in Matt 3:1 where it says he was baptizing for repentance.  

Am I just missing it?


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

Sorry rj . It was 11

11"I baptize you with* water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.


The way I read it , it could also mean that baptism by water would be replaced with baptism of spirit and fire when Christ came. Which would be pretty weird since Christ himself was baptized by water .*


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

The 12 disciples were not priests as defined in the dictionary. They were apostles. The main difference being that priests are able to perform sacred rites. Since Christianity was n't a religion at that time there were no sacred rites. 
Baptism was practiced by many religions in that day . It wasn't even performed by Jesus. So how is it a part of Christianity ?

SneeK, I did a bit of reading on the priest thing with Christ. It seems that it is rather controversial at best. Check here for a short read...http://bibleencyclopedia.com/melchisedec.htm.
It seems he could well have been a made up character. At best why would Christ be his equal and not his better ? Something fishy going on there. 

One more thought on the ordaining Christ was doing . What or who was he ordaining them in the name of ? He wasn't preaching Judaism. Matter of fact it seems he was sending them to preach''love one another''

If any thing the waters are getting muddier folks.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2010)

earl said:


> Sorry rj . It was 11
> 
> 11"I baptize you with* water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
> 
> ...


*

This is my initial take on this and I'll try and remember to look at a few resources this evening when I get home.

Gotcha...okay...in looking at just that verse it does look funny....but read the whole chapter. 

See vs 6...they confessed their sins along with getting baptized.

vs 8 goes hand in hand with I John and James, that works (fruit) are evidence of salvation...not requirements for salvation.

vs 9 the pharisees & sads who thought their heritage was enough to save them.

vs 10  you can't just say "I'm a Christian" and obtain the gift of salvation, but that it is an inward change that again, produces fruit.

vs 11 John states that his baptism is a result of repentance...but that when Christ comes and returns to heaven, he'll give us the HS.


vs 11 might also foretell of the the coming of the HS in Acts 2....the flames on top of the apostles heads and the speaking in tongues.  

If you really want to be confused, read the first chapters of acts....it seems as people were receiving the HS at different times....some at time of repentance, some at baptism, some later.  

Also, another question....did those who were believer's before Christ have the HS in them?  

okay..thread derailment over.*


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2010)

earl...i was curious and went to look at what MacArthur said on these verses.  see here  http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/2189_The-Fruits-of-True-Repentance-Part-2

I think I got it somewhat right...but shouldn't have referenced the flame in Acts....MacArthur thinks it is a baptism of eternal he!! for those who don't respond.

Either way, 2 different baptisms...one by water as a result of repentance and one of the HS in Acts 2 that Christ gives us.  Read/download..or not the sermon above.  I think it will give you the background and answer the questions your asking.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 17, 2010)

earl said:


> Baptism was practiced by many religions in that day . It wasn't even performed by Jesus. So how is it a part of Christianity ?



Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission in Matthew 28.  The apostles are shown following this command throughout the book of Acts.  Paul mentions it in most of his letters.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 17, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> earl...i was curious and went to look at what MacArthur said on these verses.  see here  http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/2189_The-Fruits-of-True-Repentance-Part-2
> 
> I think I got it somewhat right...but shouldn't have referenced the flame in Acts....MacArthur thinks it is a baptism of eternal he!! for those who don't respond.
> 
> Either way, 2 different baptisms...one by water as a result of repentance and one of the HS in Acts 2 that Christ gives us.  Read/download..or not the sermon above.  I think it will give you the background and answer the questions your asking.




Let me offer the following for you to think about.
There are three baptisms.
1.  The (water) baptism of John the Bapt for people of Israel.
2.  Baptism(Spirit) of Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3, that empowered the apostles).

3.  Baptism(water) into Jesus Christ per Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you *be baptized *in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; *and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit*.
This baptism is the baptism commissioned by Christ Himself.
This baptism is for those who have already repented and now seek Christ.  During the water baptism, one receives the Holy Spirit.

*There's one place in God's word where these two water baptism's bump up against each other.
It happened in Acts 19.
Paul happened upon some fellow believers.
Paul asked them:  2 "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked them:  3 "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 
So, finally, Paul told them this:  4 "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

*So now those disciples have been baptized in the name of Jesus.
After that water baptism was completed, verse 6 tells what came next..........
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 

I believe the Bible teaches that John's baptism no longer exist because Christ's ministry and Gospel moved beyond it.
I also believe the Bible teaches that all Christians receive the Holy Spirit during water baptism, just as the scriptures allude.

I also believe that the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit in the early verses of Acts Chap 2.  And from that point on, Holy Spirit baptism was only accomplished by the laying on of the apostles hands.  The grand, powerful, Holy Spirit baptism was something used by the apostles to help in the establishment and spread of the Gospel.

Three baptisms.  Three purposes.

But today, only one baptism.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism.


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

CPF
That was after the crucification .


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

acts 2 38Peter 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.

It says repent ... of your sins.  If Christ was sinless ,he wouldn't need baptizing. And if you believe in the trinity , he WAS the HS.


----------



## thedeacon (Jun 17, 2010)

Jesus taught baptism and so did his apostles.

Read the book of acts where their are conversions and you will see the word baptism. 

I think we need to think about what is being done here on this fourm.

Expressing our opinions. Opinions are like feet, we all have a couple of them, but the problem is a big part of them stink.

Christianity Is a way of life, including seeking out the things that are right. 

Things like repentance, confession, loving your neighbor, praying. These things don't come naturally unless you are a christian.

When John was beheaded and Jesus died on the cross, Johns baptism was lost. John was baptizing unto repentance.

John message was, "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

John started preaching  before Jesus. His work was to prepare the way for the Lord.

Why did John baptize? Because that is what God revealed to him.

Why was Jesus who was sinless baptized? Because Jesus was very strict in following what God wanted. He was baptized to (fulfeel all rightousness)

When he was baptized, God said to him, This is My Son who I am well pleased with.

The question is, why was Jesus baptized? Because it was the right thing to do.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 17, 2010)

earl said:


> acts 2 38Peter 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.
> 
> It says repent ... of your sins.  If Christ was sinless ,he wouldn't need baptizing.



Peter is addressing a different group.  This took place on the day of Pentecost.  It is after Jesus' death and resurrection and about three years after Jesus was baptized.




earl said:


> And if you believe in the trinity , he WAS the HS.



Jesus is divine, but He is not the Holy Spirit.  They are two separate Persons in the Holy Trinity.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 17, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Let me offer the following for you to think about.
> There are three baptisms.
> 1.  The (water) baptism of John the Bapt for people of Israel.
> 2.  Baptism(Spirit) of Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3, that empowered the apostles).
> ...



Very good summary!


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2010)

earl said:


> It says repent ... of your sins.  If Christ was sinless ,he wouldn't need baptizing. And if you believe in the trinity , he WAS the HS.



correct...He didn't need to be baptized.

He did it as an example.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 17, 2010)

Sorry, I missed this:



earl said:


> CPF
> That was after the crucification .



Yes, it was.  I freely admit that the people baptized after Matthew 28 were baptized for different reasons than Jesus.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 17, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> correct...He didn't need to be baptized.
> 
> He did it as an example.


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

Ok ,let me catch up.
3 baptisms
1 By water for repentance.
As an aside , isn't it strange that water was used too destroy the world and to baptize with . Ironic.
Acts 19 :3,4 [post 28] voids this baptism by water for repentance. Christ was baptized this way ,by John, so that kind of voids his baptism .
2 Baptism by HS. Jesus missed out on that one. Evidently this one was for keeps and what God had in mind in the first place. It came about after the crucification.
3 Baptism by water again . In Christ's name. Jesus wasn't baptized this way either and that is the baptism he received from John. As important as this was supposed to become , I would expect some thing a whole lot clearer . I would hate to think just Baptist went to heaven. Who would they bum beer from ?

Ronnie you say there is only one baptism today . Water or laying on of hands. [I think that's what you meant ] That would mean John's and one other aren't valid any more. Water or HS ? I still don't see why Christ would be baptized by John if it didn't mean anything. Just doing it to be an example doesn't make sense since once he died the rules changed.

Deacon , I expect more from you than''it was the right thing to do''If Jesus was doing God's work you would think there would be something more to it. The way I am seeing it ,from this thread, is that he did it to become a priest of Judaism, he did it for repentance, he did it to be an example of what was to come. But the reasons and means of baptism changed from when he was baptized to what Paul said it meant.
CPF, I disagree on the trinity. If they are separate entities, where were they at the beginning of Genesis ? 
If Christ was baptized for a different reason , what was it ? I don't buy the example reason. As Ronnie said there where different baptisms and Christ had no need to repent.


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

Mark 10 :38
38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

So far I only see him being baptized once. The repentance baptism .This verse seems to indicate that there was more importance attached to it than just setting an example.
I  am still reading Mark ,so I will have more questions.


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

Mark 11 : 29Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"

 31They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' 32But if we say, 'From men'...." (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

 33So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." 
      Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 17, 2010)

Let me put it this way earl.

Jesus didn't need anything that either baptism offered.
Jesus didn't need to repent.  He had no sin.
Jesus didn't need the HS because Jesus was a part of the Spirit.

Yet Jesus insisted upon being baptized by John the Baptist.
John was shocked. and we don't fully understand why Jesus insisted upon being baptized.

Baptism is a tool incorporated by Jesus.
But from what we know and understand about it all,
Jesus didn't personally need to be baptized.


----------



## earl (Jun 17, 2010)

There are a couple of places in Mark where he is called Rabbi could the baptism been to confirm him as a Judaic Priest like SneeK said.

I'm not so sure about him not needing to be baptized. Didn't God speak to him right afterwards ? And how do you explain Mark 11:33 where he talks about who authorized it ?

See what I mean about the waters getting muddy  ? The more of Mark I read the odder baptism gets.


----------



## earl (Jun 18, 2010)




----------



## thedeacon (Jun 18, 2010)

Why was Jesus baptized? Because it was what God wanted him to do. It was very clear that Jesus wanted to follow God to the letter.

He was Baptized because it was what was expected of him by his father. He had not sinned so it could not have been for repentance, I just simply don't know about the priest thing. I think thats a stretch. 

He was the son of God so wasn't he already above all the priest on earth.

Why was he baptized?  because it was the right thing to do. If people were going to follow Jesus and use him for an example, he wanted to be baptized of man. 

It became a commandment for us, Jesus was the example for our lives. 

He was baptized because he chose to, to please God.

For obediance sake


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> CPF, I disagree on the trinity. If they are separate entities, where were they at the beginning of Genesis ?



Genesis, chapter 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 

The church fathers believed that v. 1 references God the Father, v. 2 references the Holy Spirit, and v. 3 references the Son (His Spoken Word.)

Also, in v. 26:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,

(emphasis mine)




earl said:


> If Christ was baptized for a different reason , what was it ? I don't buy the example reason.



I can't add anything to the passages I quoted before.  It's what the church has been teaching for 2,000 years.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> See what I mean about the waters getting muddy  ? The more of Mark I read the odder baptism gets.



Keep reading.  Mark 16 is coming soon.  For those us living today, the message is plain:  get baptized!  Jesus says it in Mark 16 and Matthew 28.  Peter preaches it in Acts 2.


----------



## earl (Jun 18, 2010)

''Why was Jesus baptized? Because it was what God wanted him to do.''

Chapter and verse please.

CPF, Mark 16  makes modern Christianity even odder IMO.

 15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Speaking in tongues, handling snakes, drinking poison , and hands on healing are not practiced by 99%  of churches today . I don't think the Church practices any of these. Yet the bible clearly states that these things are signs ,as well as baptism . Looks like cherry picking what signs to follow to pick baptism . What do you make of Mark 11:33 ?


----------



## earl (Jun 18, 2010)

Acts 1  5For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."                                                                              Sounds like a different baptism to me . No water .


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> Acts 1  5For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."                                                                              Sounds like a different baptism to me . No water .



The above words were spoken by Jesus to His apostles.
One chapter later, and a few days, the apostles were baptized(submersed) in the Holy Spirit in a very powerful way.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> ''Why was Jesus baptized? Because it was what God wanted him to do.''
> 
> Chapter and verse please.
> 
> ...



1st.  Baptism was not a sign.  It was a command from God to those who believed.

2nd.  No cherry picking going on.  If God gave me the gift of tongues, I'd certainly be using it today in whatever way it would do good for the spread of the Gospel.  But God has not.
Healing does take place today.  But God does it thru the prayers of the church.
God gives gifts as He choses, and withholds them as He choses.
We humans have no understanding of God's purposes and pursuits.  What is here, is here.  And I just keep rolling along.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> CPF, Mark 16  makes modern Christianity even odder IMO.
> 
> 15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
> 
> Speaking in tongues, handling snakes, drinking poison , and hands on healing are not practiced by 99%  of churches today . I don't think the Church practices any of these. Yet the bible clearly states that these things are signs, as well as baptism . Looks like cherry picking what signs to follow to pick baptism .



The passage does not say baptism is a sign.  Five signs are listed in verses 17 and 18:

drive out demons
speak in new tongues
pick up snakes
drink deadly poison
lay hands on the sick

The majority of churches that do not practice these believe they passed away.




earl said:


> What do you make of Mark 11:33 ?



Jesus mentions the baptism of John in Mark 11 but only to make a point.  John's baptism is not what the religious leaders were questioning him about.  

Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, He clears the temple, and curses the fig tree.  Then, He is questioned about his authority to do these things.  Jesus responded with a question about John's baptism because He knew they had no answer.


----------



## earl (Jun 18, 2010)

Just a few quick ones before I hit the river. Catfish not baptizing. 

Ronnie ,stilll a different baptism . 
I would still like chapter and verse on where God commanded it.
You neatly sidestepped snakes and poison. Matter of faith ?

CPF

How could signs pass away ?  Especially since there still are practioners ?

I reread that and you are corrrect . Still a good question imo.  What is the answer?
Sidestepping questions doesn't seem very Godly to me . In rereading Mark in it's  entirety ,it seems like Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time trying to hide his identity and speaking in riddles . What was the purpose in killing the fig tree ? Seems like he was angry because it didn't bear fruit out of season .


----------



## earl (Jun 18, 2010)

Ronnie one more.
The disciples healed in the same manner as Christ. Where and when did it go from hands on to prayers from the church ? Church doctrine surely couldn't change the way God works .


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 18, 2010)

earl said:


> CPF
> 
> How could signs pass away ?  Especially since there still are practioners ?



I haven't looked at this issue in awhile, but my recollection goes like this:  these were signs used in the early church to verify the apostles' message.  These signs were the "stamp of authenticity" to show that these people were truly from God.  After the apostles died and the church became more established, the need for these signs died, so they ended.

As for the practitioners of today, who can say?  The most common gift you see demonstrated today is the gift of tongues.  From what I have seen of this, I am unimpressed.  It seems like complete gibberish to me, and I have never seen anyone speak an actual earthly language that they have never studied.  It's always an "angelic" language.  

I have never seen any convincing healing.  The healings I have seen on TV are very lame (no pun intended) and completely unverifiable.  I have no doubt God can and does heal, but I have serious doubts about many of the people claiming to have this gift.  Benny Hinn is one example.  I don't think he could heal a headache if you gave him a barrel of ibuprofen.

People do still handle snakes today.  People die from it fairly regularly, too.  And they're always "home grown" snakes.  For once, I'd like to see someone walk into the zoo and slap around a black mamba.  If they were still alive thirty minutes later, I'd be a believer.  Snake handling seems to be confined to Appalachia, also.  You never see it in California, New York or Australia.  If the gift still existed today, I believe it would be much more widespread, at least as widespread as tongues.  Same goes for drinking poison.  You'll never see anybody on TBN try that one.

As for casting out demons, this is another very "specialized" gift that you just don't hear much about.  There are Protestants like Bob Larson who talk about it a lot.  Catholics and Orthodox also practice it, but it is very limited.




earl said:


> Still a good question imo.  What is the answer?  Sidestepping questions doesn't seem very Godly to me .



I'm losing track of your questions.    Which one is this?  Mark 11:33?




earl said:


> In rereading Mark in it's  entirety ,it seems like Jesus spent an inordinate amount of time trying to hide his identity and speaking in riddles . What was the purpose in killing the fig tree ? Seems like he was angry because it didn't bear fruit out of season .



Jesus did speak in parables a lot.  As you read through the NT, you will see Jesus mention that "my time has not yet come" or words to that effect.  He often tried to hide his meaning if the timing was not right or if the crowd was not right.

I was always a little confused by the fig tree, too.  Your theory sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## earl (Jun 19, 2010)

Yes Mark 11:33.

Your take on the ''gifts'' May be right , I don't know. I would think that the folks who do practice them now need a sign to show they are from God. Especially 99% of any of the ones on TV.
With Christ and his parables , I don't know. Seems he had an awfully  important message and reason fro being on earth to not be straightforward with his words. Of course after exchanging views with Lowjack ,maybe it's a cultural thing. Obscure what you mean to the point where no one can pin anything on you . 

And now that I have thoroughly derailed my thread... why was Christ baptized? I;m still waiting on chapter and verse for where God commands it .


----------



## Madman (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> ''Why was Jesus baptized? Because it was what God wanted him to do.''
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking in tongues, handling snakes, drinking poison , and hands on healing are not practiced by 99%  of churches today . I don't think the Church practices any of these. Yet the bible clearly states that these things are signs ,as well as baptism . Looks like cherry picking what signs to follow to pick baptism . What do you make of Mark 11:33 ?



Baptism is the New Testament mark of the believer.  It is a Sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.
Those who opposed Christ refused His baptism, how appropriate that those who followed Him accept it.
“Profess it with your mouth and believe it in your heart…”  it is the public pronouncement of your belief.
I believe it was Tertullian who wrote “ any Christian who refuses to be baptized is of little faith.”


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2010)

MM , good to hear from you. I'm hoping someone will throw me a bone and give me chapter and verse for God's commandment to be baptized.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> MM , good to hear from you. I'm hoping someone will throw me a bone and give me chapter and verse for God's commandment to be baptized.



Didn't realize that is what you were looking for.

Here you go.  The Great Commission

Matt. 28:19-20

19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 

 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> Yes Mark 11:33.



I really can't add anything to what I said previously in post #50.




earl said:


> why was Christ baptized? I;m still waiting on chapter and verse for where God commands it .



I don't think there is a chapter and verse for this.  On the other hand, there are plenty of scriptures saying that we should be baptized.


----------



## Madman (Jun 21, 2010)

Glad to see you are studying and asking questions.  I am too, mine are just a little different.  

I would like to put my response in context:

I am no scholar and you are going to get responses from all over the spectrum.  I give the credit for that to the “reformation”.

The “Church” has had a view of baptism since its inception.   Is Baptism necessary for salvation?  Do you have to be fully immersed or can you be sprinkled? Will an indoor swimming pool suffice or must it be in living water?  Head up stream or downstream?  

I assure you the farther you get away from 1st century Christianity the more you will see variances, and once you get to the reformation the doctrine “explodes with every whim of man”. Including the re-baptizers who believed sprinkling was not good enough for salvation. That is why historical documents are vital to doctrine, who better to put the Scriptures in context than the Church Fathers?

I yield to those who were closest, the early Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, (even though there was never really such a thing until the great schism and then the reformation), the Church Fathers and historical documents, such as the councils and the creeds that came out of them.

Everyone with an opinion will be able to cite a verse, in context or out of context.  

The question is: when we read the Holy Scriptures in total do we see and feel the “heart of God”?  Or do we simply pick verses to defend our position?

I can tell you of my experience:  I was baptized, sprinkled, as an infant, confirmed at the age of 8 years old and baptized by the Holy Spirit when I was 31 years old.  I can give chapter and verse why each of those is “Biblically” appropriate.  Many on this forum will not agree but that is OK, today my salvation is secure.

As to where God the Father said “Be baptized” I do not believe you are going to find it.  But God the Son in the person of Jesus the Christ did,  “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”   Matthew 28:19

By the way, that raises another question: Do you baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or do you baptize just in the name of the Holy Spirit?  If you follow Scripture and tradition you go one way if you only follow Scripture you could go either.

Glad you and the pups are well.  I pray you are enjoying the grandchildren.

God’s Peace. 
MM


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2010)

Let  me rephrase . Where did God command Christ to be baptized ?  After the crucification there are several verses where Christ said to be baptized. No where can I find anything telling Christ to have John the Baptist do the dunking .


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> Let me rephrase . Where did God command Christ to be baptized ? ... No where can I find anything telling Christ to have John the Baptist do the dunking .



That's because it's not in there.


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2010)

Then why did he do it. This is getting to be like Abbott and Costello's who's on first .


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> Then why did he do it.



My answer is way back in post #7.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 21, 2010)

earl said:


> Let  me rephrase . Where did God command Christ to be baptized ?  After the crucification there are several verses where Christ said to be baptized. No where can I find anything telling Christ to have John the Baptist do the dunking .



What you're looking for doesn't exist.  And there's good reason for that.
The Bible wasn't written from that angle.  The Bible is a record of the life of Christ that contains instructions that will lead us to the risen Savior.
God didn't command Jesus into the desert to be tempted by Satan.
There's no record of God commanding Jesus to submit to the beating He endured.
It is we who are instructed in regard to baptism and living.
Jesus came prepared to do as God expected Him to.

The key is this:  John  at first refused to baptize Jesus.
Jesus told John, "I must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness".
What ever that means.
Immediately after His baptism, a dove appeared, and God spoke from Heaven.  "This is My Son".

Jesus fulfilled what was suppose to be done.
Afterwards, God acknowledged Him.
In the center of all that:  Jesus' baptism.


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2010)

CPF ,that is the only one to date that made any kind of sense. A lot of trouble for holy water though. Ronnie, sorry but that sounds like when you tell a kid,''Just because''.
Personally I think baptism was the thing to do for several religions and beliefs. Kind of like singing a hymn, it;s just what you do because every one is doing it .


----------



## earl (Jun 21, 2010)

''And there's good reason for that.
The Bible wasn't written from that angle. The Bible is a record of the life of Christ that contains instructions that will lead us to the risen Savior.''

Ronnie ,I think there are a couple of million Jews who who say you are at least half wrong.


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 25, 2010)

We seem to missing something here – someone actually said,” Those who opposed Christ refused His baptism, how appropriate that those who followed Him accept it.”

It is fair to ask – Um?  Folks?  Christ didn’t baptize himself.  So it isn’t, and wasn’t, HIS baptism.  The adult Jesus WAS baptized.  According to your Book.  By John the Baptizer.  A man.  And a terribly odd one, by all accounts.  This is a bit of a problem, and can’t be explained away easily.  No matter how far you extend the rationalizations, it cannot be possible for a God, one of the proposed Trinity, to have any doubts that need to be assuaged by baptism.  And it still needs to be explained just how this sort of thing was arranged, ritually – did John baptize Christ in Christ’s name?  My last experience of this ritual had a baby baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Amen.  

But, He is supposed to have been that Son.  You can hardly baptize a fella in his own name.  And certainly not baptize a fella into a religion that could not exist, by self-definition, until AFTER His death.  There really isn’t a way around this one.  It can’t be both ways – you cannot have a Divine Christ, anointed at birth by the Magi and pointed out by the Star of Bethlehem, and also have the adult Christ in New Testament Gospels, especially Mark,  who needs to have this divinity pointed out to Him by the Voice from Above.  

Paul’s narrative is quite different than Mark’s.  In Paul’s story the Divine Christ came first, and Jesus the wise rabbi came along later.  In Mark, Jesus the wise rabbi became Divine upon his baptism, as an adult, by John the Baptizer, for reasons undisclosed, and then the Voice spaketh to Him – “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”  Um?  Paul?  Got an answer for that bit?  Nothing personal there, Paul, but yer buddy Mark just said that Jesus didn’t have a clue that he was actually God until AFTER he met John the Baptizer, got dipped into the river Jordan, and was clued into his Divinity by the Voice.  We have a bit of a disagreement in the gospels here.  

This sort of fixed, steady, and contradictory twoness at the very heart of the New Testament can’t be wished away by either rationalizations or hair-splitting.  The Book says what the Book says.  But, of course, since this is not resolvable, it is called a ‘mystery,’ and is glossed over in favor of further hair-splitting – wine or blood; flesh or wafer; one God in three spirits or three Gods in one?  Is it a song of benevolent peacemakers, happy children, enlightening parables, and peace on Earth?  Or is it a threnody of nails, suffering, wild dogs, condemnation for disobedience, execution, and the eventual rise of the righteous after their own glorious death?  We continually spin the remote Pantocrator of Byzantium around the endlessly suffering Man of the Renaissance, with no decision as to which is which, cherry-picking which characterization we wish to call up to suit the situation at hand.  Make up yer minds folks.  Which is it?

You can’t have a Divine Birth, miraculously born of a Virgin, then preach Mark, who somehow forgot to mention that bit.  And you can’t have an innocent adult Jesus baptized, by a man, if he already knew that he was Divine, as the other Gospel proposes.  The two propositions are mutually exclusive, as are the Bible verses proposing to prove both points.  This is not a ‘mystery’ folks, it is a logical impossibility (notwithstanding the biological impossibility).  

William Empson, who might have been as odd a duck as any of us, pointed out the oddness of a morality that had become reduced to ‘keeping taboos imposed by an infinite malignity.’  He observed that the re-introduction of human sacrifice as a sacred principle left the ‘believer’ with no sense either of personal honor or of the public good.  They follow more out of fear than out of understanding, in other words.  Not a really good environment under which to make decent, objective decisions.  

And if there is any more powerful demonstration of this point than in Mark, I can hardly find one.  (This is yer Book fellas – read it.)  Here, the arrest and execution of Jesus is less preordained than accidental and horrid.  Jesus seems to have some idea that he is in trouble – what with leading a rebellion against Rome that wasn’t really a rebellion, but caught fire and became one anyway – and some part of Him wants no part of it: “Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take away this cup from me.”  Jesus knew the Roman death awaiting rebels, and he feared it.  Can’t blame him for that.

The cry of desolation, oft quoted, “ My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – though edited out or explained away by later evangelists, pierces even now across the centuries and the odd comforts offered by the preachers.  Though certainly apocryphal, as all of the stories are, this one also cannot be easily explained away.  It is a terrifying cry of shock and self-pity, and an admission of failure on many levels.  If nothing else, this part of the story reveals that the faith in Jesus begins with the failure of His own Faith.  

His Father let Him down, and the promise wasn’t kept.  “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God,” he announced, in that Book.  But none of them did.  Jesus said aloud that the end was very, very near.  It wasn’t.  

Everything that follows is little more than an apology for, and a rationalization of, what went wrong.  The sublime retreat to metaphor, upon which so many houses are built, begins with that apology.  If the Kingdom of God proves elusive, then He must have meant that the Kingdom is inside, or outside, or above, or yet to come, or beyond our ken, or anything other than what the words plainly stated.  We presume, now, to speak for the unspoken and the undelivered, and pretend to interpret for no better reason than to keep false hopes (that are now thousands of years old) alive and present.  C’mon. 

Sorry that your Gospels let you down.  But let’s be serious here – ‘doubters’ are not the ones who failed to deliver the promises that some of you still so fervently wish to come true.  We don’t doubt because we wish to be contrary by nature – we merely point out that, um?  Fellas?  You’ve been had.  Not a darned thing you were promised came true.  The moment a single one of you can prove that it did we will stop marginalizing you, but until then you will notice that religions are failing under the weight of facts.  And quit shooting the messengers, huh?  I didn’t invent the idea that you are quite wrong.  You did that yourselves, by failing to agree even among yourselves, and by continually retreating with each new discovery over the years.    

Sorry about that.  But it just breaks our hearts to see some of you still holding out after a few thousand years of disappointment.  If wishes were fishes, and all that . . .

Just an innocent question here – but if the waters were the bit that was made Holy by dipping Jesus in them, rather than the other way around, then do we owe a serious apology to everyone who has been drowned since then?  Seems a bit odd to make water Holy, after the fact, then use it to keep killing people, after all . . .                                                 

Seems like an odd use of 'Baptism.'


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 25, 2010)

Powerful words  from Mount St. Helen.

Great use of the pronouns  "We"  and "You".

And proof that just because a person talks about a subject doesn't mean that person understands what was read or written.

If there was a speck of a possbility that you actually cared, I would respond to the specifics of your post.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 25, 2010)

Indeed, RT. Some are content with their lack of understanding. And some openly expose it.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2010)

'And proof that just because a person talks about a subject doesn't mean that person understands what was read or written.''

There seems to be a lack of an understandable answer on the question of Christ's baptism by John. So far we have...
a. To completet his ordination as a priest. hmmm
b. God commanded it. No chapter and verse. hmmm
c.It was the right thing to do. No chapter and verse .hmmm
d. To make holy water. Well OK.

Any of ya'll that are not content with your lack of understanding are more than welcome to answer the question. Preferably with chapter and verse. If you don't care to expose that lack of understanding about one of the requirements of salvation for many Christian faiths and the namesake of the Baptist faith , it will be understandable. 
gt , I agree with your comment . Perhaps differently than you meant , but I agree.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 25, 2010)

earl said:


> 'And proof that just because a person talks about a subject doesn't mean that person understands what was read or written.''
> 
> There seems to be a lack of an understandable answer on the question of Christ's baptism by John. So far we have...





earl said:


> a. To completet his ordination as a priest. hmmm
> b. God commanded it. No chapter and verse. hmmm
> c.It was the right thing to do. No chapter and verse .hmmm
> d. To make holy water. Well OK.
> ...




earl, since it seems to be of interest to you, why not do your own research and let us know what you think?
You might consider that more than one answer may be correct.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2010)

I have studied the question quite a bit. The answer I came up with is that John was a bit of a lunatic. Why Christ allowed himself to be baptized is not found in the bible . It is one of many parts  that I have found no rhyme or reason for. 
With the diversity of the regulars here I thought perhaps one or more might be able to enlighten me with am answer that could be backed up with something more than Rhetoric. One noticeable absentee was Lowjack. I thought that perhaps he could supply an answer based on Judaic law or custom. 

I do find it of interest that when an answer isn't available, most Christians seem to tense up and are not be able to say ''I don't know''. or'' The bible doesn't explain it. ''
BTW , I would accept ANY or ALL answers that are provable .


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 25, 2010)

earl said:


> 'And proof that just because a person talks about a subject doesn't mean that person understands what was read or written.''
> 
> There seems to be a lack of an understandable answer on the question of Christ's baptism by John. So far we have...
> a. To completet his ordination as a priest. hmmm
> ...



Once again I'll tell you, no where in the Bible will you find God commanding Jesus to be baptized.  No place in the Bible will you find a reason for Jesus being baptized (other than Jesus' words, (to fulfill all righteousness).

You are beginning to sound like Dio with this question of yours.  And you usually shoot straight.  Please don't turn this into the "ignorance" of Christians because they cannot provide an answer, that is not given, concerning a Savior that you profess not to believe in.

Listen, there are hundreds of Bible questions I don't have the answer to.  We people(all) sometimes try to answer those unanswerable questions.  When we do, we end up with someone's foot in our mouths.  Hopefully it will be our own.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 25, 2010)

Sorry earl, I posted #73 while you were posting #72.


----------



## earl (Jun 25, 2010)

Not a problem Ronnie. 
The problem I as I see it is not trying to make Christians look stupid or ignorant.
Trying to get answers to WHY Christians believe in certain things ,especially things they are adamant about, can be vexing. 
SNeeKEE gave the answer about Christ becoming a priest. Others afforded the others . I didn't pull them out of my hat. I don't know if they came from folks you have on ignore or maybe you speed read. 
Baptism and the manner it is performed in ,or not, seem to be a hot topic with  in the various faiths. Aren't you curious as to the story in Mark ?  I know Dio may grate on your nerves, and may even tend to be caustic at times, But he appears to be as well read ,if not better read than a lot who profess to know the bible from ''kiver to kiver''. FWIW ,I didn't mention Dio. I just used your response. And gt's .

I also have looked at ,and when needed, researched every one's answers and responded to what I perceived as a lack of evidence.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 25, 2010)

Earl I have been known to speed read. (every sixth word).

My wife accuses me of speed thinking sometimes.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 25, 2010)

earl. you will notice I entered this thread late (#69 & #71) because I was interested in the responses you were getting and might get. It's been every bit of interesting. One of the biggest hurdles for most Christians is to be able to understand on some level that Jesus, in His earthly life was 100% God and 100% man. It really defies any human explanation because we cannot grasp the spiritual truth of that reality. We simply don't have a reference point in our existence with which to identify.

I believe in one God who expresses Himself in three distinct personalities. If you can accept that as I do, then it must be that all three representations have total and complete unity (with the single exception of that period on the cross when Jesus bore the penalty of our sin and God, the Father poured out His wrath upon God, the Son as Jesus took full ownership of the sins of all mankind).

So, when God the Son says He was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness", it must be in agreement with the plan and purpose of God the Father. 

Do I know exactly what is meant by that phrase? Sorry to say, I do not comprehend the entire meaning. I have some sense of it being a public commitment, a testimony of Jesus' desire to be obedient to all that God the Father would ask of Him. I also understand that Jesus alone could accomplish such a commitment. No other baptism, before or since has the same significance and depth of meaning.

1 John 3:7-8 (King James Version)

 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 


Not only was Jesus, the Son of God, righteous from everlasting to everlasting, Jesus, the man, was righteous. 

Now, obviously, a study does not reveal God, the Father, giving specific instruction to Jesus about being baptized, but Jesus gave testimony that everything He said or did was not original to Himself, but was done in obedience to God, the Father. It is then understood that Jesus was doing the will of the Father when He submitted to baptism.


----------



## crackerdave (Jun 25, 2010)

Jesus most certainly had a way of making folks _think,_ didn't He?  He still does!


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 2, 2010)

Second Edition, Random House Dictionary of The English Language, Unabridged:  “Righteous; adj.; 1. characterized by uprightness or morality: a righteous observance of the law. 2. morally right or justifiable: righteous indignation. 3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous: a righteous or godly person.”

We’ll leave the slang meanings be for the purpose of this discussion – playing a ‘righteous’ Jazz riff seems a bit off-topic – but still we end up with some problems.

I never asked if anyone actually liked that Book, after all, but only if anyone has read the darned thing.  If Jesus submitted to Baptism because it was the ‘righteous’ thing to do, then either it was 1. an observance of the law; or 2. justifiable in the face of an opposition; or 3. a means towards the end of becoming a godly person.  

But there was no law, there was no real opposition, and the story has it that Jesus already was a godly person.  So using a vague term like ‘righteousness’ is hardly answering the thought at hand.  If it was the ‘right’ thing to do, then why didn’t everybody else line up beforehand?  Clearly the ritual of Baptism existed before Jesus found out about it, else the entire story in Mark makes no sense whatsoever.  Remember here, in Mark we first meet Jesus as an adult.

So where did this John the Baptizer fella come from?  Did he just meet up with a wandering rabbi, and suddenly they decided, ‘Hey, if I dip you in the river here, then everything will be okay after that?’  Did they decide there and then that the water would become Holy and Jesus would become a Christian all in one act?  Seems like one of those ‘mysteries’ I keep hearing about . . . .I’m forced to ask again – in whose name did John Baptize the living, adult human Jesus?  And under what authority?

“I Baptize thee in the name of Thyself, and Thyself, and Thyself, providing that you are who you say you are, and things pan out, and you actually get executed later on, and, by the way, do I really need to be beheaded later on in the story, ‘cause that would be a bummer . . .”  It really is a tough thing to visualize, as rituals go.  How in the heck does a bug and honey eating ascetic cast-out go about Baptizing God into a new religion that wasn’t even envisioned yet? Christianity didn’t even begin until well after Christ died.  But God was Baptized anyway?

To say that the uncertainty is the certainty is hardly satisfying, and to say that the mystery is the fact is total avoidance.  To embrace the ‘mystery’ that one can be 100% one thing and also 100% another is patent nonsense.  Appeals to pretended ‘Authority’ and appeals to fear can attempt to circumscribe the argument, and can attempt to congeal it within organized structures of denial, but it hardly ends the question by a refusal to think. 

Suppressing simple, honest questions under the flag of orthodoxy for no better reason than an unwillingness to openly consider the questions themselves falls under an entirely different definition.  Similarly, endlessly dancing around the question reveals more than a bit of doubt and discomfort on the part of the ‘believers,’ where one would think that the certainty of the adherents would have ready answers, already documented and proven.  We’ve given you a couple of thousand years head-start before asking the hard questions, and all you can do is say, “Um, we don’t know?”  C’mon.  If it is that easy then I can start a religion tomorrow.  Either you know, for sure, or you are jerking the rest of us around under a flag of ignorance.  Stand and prove that you know what you are selling, or back away and admit that you don’t know. There is no middle ground.  

No rational person can look another in the eye and actually say, “I’m not sure about any of this, but it says so, sorta, kinda, if you interpret it the way I do, in one Book I almost read once, and that’s why I’m completely right, so follow me . . .”  

Perhaps the believers are drowning in a sea of too many words (In the beginning was the Word), and have lost sight of the meanings.  Word without end.  Amen.  If there are interpretations available, and ‘doubts’ and ‘mysteries’ remaining, then there is no actual certainty behind the ‘Truth’ that is so readily evoked.  Perhaps too many have purchased this ‘inaudible’ aspect of belief, and have stopped hearing.

So answer the question, fellas, or go home and learn your own religion – If Jesus was born into his Divinity, and was God all along, then what need did He have for a Baptism by a human?  

Bonus question:  If  Jesus was truly one with God, in what possible sense could he suffer the Biblical explanations of fear, doubt, pain, horror, exasperation, and the whole range of human emotions and feelings?  Oops.  That needed to be explained, so we have the Book of John, where he doesn’t.  But that contradicts the other Books.  Nice try, but even if one reads John with an objective eye, we end up asking how come if he doesn’t suffer these emotions, according to John, in what sense is his death a sacrifice rather than just a theatrical performance?  Killing a lamb whose throat is not cut and that does not bleed and does not actually die isn’t much of an offering.  We read John, and walk away asking, ‘Okay, then what was the point?’ (And no, one may not take all of the ‘Gospels’ as a holistic experience, for hundreds of reasons, not the least being that they simply do not align and disagree with one another both factually and spiritually.)  

And another Bonus question:  If Jesus was God, at birth, and not some sort of a Hindu-ish avatar or mythological off-spring, awaiting godhood, then do you really mean that God once was born?  God had dirty diapers and took naps, had colic and learned to walk, got acne and went through puberty, and the like?  It really is astoundingly unsatisfying, as stories go . . .

But let’s stick to the topic:  Jesus was Baptized, by John the Baptizer, as (choose one): A: A Christian.; 2: A Jew.; III: A Catholic.; D: A Protestant.; 5: A Taoist.; VI: A Hindu.;  G: A Seventh Day Adventist.; 8: A Buddhist.; IX: A Rastafarian.; J: A Unitarian.; or 11: Other.  A Baptism, you see, is by definition a ceremony of initiation and dedication, or a purifying experience, if you will, and none of these points seems to be germane to God himself . . .   ‘Righteousness’ isn’t really an answer, since all of the above (including ‘Other’) will be happy to regale us with tales of their own ‘righteousness.’


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 2, 2010)

Oi Vey! , Some one asks where did Jesus received the Commandment from God to be baptized ?

Here we can see the total disregard for Judaism or for understanding or not wanting to comprehend Jesus was a Jew, and A Kosher Jew at that, the only one that has kept the Law perfectly to the letter;
 The commandment of the Mikvah is Biblical in origin and part of a group of laws known as chukim, laws for which no reason is given. At Sinai all Jews entered the convenant with God by purifying themselves in a Mikvah(Baptism) in order to receive the Torah. Observances like these chukim, based on faith, not logic, bring us closer to God. This observance is so important that the building of a Mikvah is said to take precedence over other Jewish structures. When there is not a Mikvah available in an area, community leaders are obligated to sell a Torah in order to help pay for the building of a Mikvah

 There are three different types of commandments that call for immersion in a Mikvah: * within marriage * for conversion to Judaism * and for utensils. A bride before her wedding and a woman during her married life use the Mikvah to elevate their relationship from a merely physical one to a spiritual and holy one. In every generation throughout the millennium, on every continent, Jewish women have marked the rhythm of their sexual lives by immersing themselves in Mikvot from Masada to any part of the world.

Jesus received the Baptism as a sign that he would be an instrument for God or in other words he received the Baptism as a Utensil for the work of God.

It is all in the bible Guys.


----------



## earl (Jul 2, 2010)

[edit] Historic reasons

First room in the medieval mikveh in Speyer. 

Pool of a medieval mikveh in Speyer, dating back to 1128 . 
Traditionally, the mikveh was used by both men and women to regain ritual purity after various events, according to regulations laid down in the Torah and in classical rabbinical literature. The Torah requires full immersion

after Keri[14] — normal emissions of semen, whether from sexual activity, or from nocturnal emission; bathing in a mikveh due to Keri is known as tevilath Ezra (“the immersion of Ezra”) 
after Zav/Zavah[15] — abnormal discharges of bodily fluids 
after Tzaraath[16] — certain skin condition(s). These are termed lepra in the Septuagint, and therefore traditionally translated into English as leprosy; this is probably a translation error, as the Greek term lepra mostly refers to psoriasis, and the Greek term for leprosy was elephas/elephantiasis. 
by anyone who came into contact with someone suffering from Zav/Zavah, or into contact with someone still in Niddah (normal menstruation), or who comes into contact with articles that have been used or sat upon by such persons.[17][18] 
by Jewish priests when they are being consecrated[19] 
by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur, after sending away the goat to Azazel, and by the man who leads away the goat[20] 
by the Jewish priest who performed the Red Heifer ritual[21] 
after contact with a corpse or grave,[22] in addition to having the ashes of the Red Heifer ritual sprinkled upon them 
after eating meat from an animal that died naturally[23] 
Classical rabbinical writers conflated the rules for zavah and niddah. It also became customary for priests to fully immerse themselves before Jewish holidays, and the laity of many communities subsequently adopted this practice. Converts to Judaism are required to undergo full immersion in water.

R' Aryeh Kaplan in Waters of Life connects the laws of impurity to the narrative in the beginning of Genesis. According to Genesis, By eating of the fruit Adam and Eve had brought death into the world. Kaplan points out that most of the laws of impurity relate to some form of death (or in the case of Niddah the loss of a potential life). One who comes into contact with one of the forms of death must then immerse in water which is described in Genesis as flowing out of the Garden of Eden (the source of life) in order to cleanse oneself of this contact with death (and by extension of sin).


----------



## earl (Jul 2, 2010)

You are being quite disengenous with your claim that is is in the Bible. It is not in the Christian Bible . All the law I hav e found so far pertain strictly to Judaisnm , not Christianity.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 2, 2010)

earl said:


> You are being quite disengenous with your claim that is is in the Bible. It is not in the Christian Bible . All the law I hav e found so far pertain strictly to Judaisnm , not Christianity.



The Torah is part of the bible, I have never met such a hard headed  person such as you in my life.

Christ was a Jew and the Laws of Christianity came through him, but he lived as a Jew and he was Obeying Torah when he was baptised.
It is disengenous Christians and people such as you that want to disregard who and What Christ was.
I understand you are limited in understanding because the Holy Spirit only teaches those that have being by Saved Faith.
There was no such thing as Christian Baptism, The Baptisms that the Apsotles were doing were Jewish Rituals.
Your Copy and paste is missing 3 other reasons for Mikvah.


----------



## earl (Jul 3, 2010)

Will following the Torah get me to heaven ? Will converting to Judaism get me into heaven ? When did Judaism start believing in Jesus Christ as the true messiah ? Will following Jewish law get me to heaven ?

If none of the above will get a soul into heaven, your whole approach will lead you to hades .

Please full free to post ALL the reasons for mikvah since you obviously were trying to mislead with your first explanation. Would you care to explain why Christians were told to baptize ?


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2010)

earl said:


> Will following the Torah get me to heaven ? Will converting to Judaism get me into heaven ? When did Judaism start believing in Jesus Christ as the true messiah ? Will following Jewish law get me to heaven ?
> 
> If none of the above will get a soul into heaven, your whole approach will lead you to hades .
> 
> Please full free to post ALL the reasons for mikvah since you obviously were trying to mislead with your first explanation. Would you care to explain why Christians were told to baptize ?



When "because the Lord says so" is enough...we will let down our nets as instructed, we will fill the urns with water as commanded, we will put up the very sword we were told to buy when we sold our garment...just, and only...because the Lord says so.
We abandon our own reason to live where everything appears unreasonable...but is miraculous.
God offers...men choose.
Live where you think you know the end from the beginning...or really live...where there is no end.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 3, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> ...Rituals.



That simple.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 3, 2010)

earl said:


> Will following the Torah get me to heaven ? Will converting to Judaism get me into heaven ? When did Judaism start believing in Jesus Christ as the true messiah ? Will following Jewish law get me to heaven ?
> 
> If none of the above will get a soul into heaven, your whole approach will lead you to hades .
> 
> Please full free to post ALL the reasons for mikvah since you obviously were trying to mislead with your first explanation. Would you care to explain why Christians were told to baptize ?


It is abvious to all who read my post that in fact is the correct answer, Yeshua was following Jewish Law, he received the Baptism of John as a sign He was Following The Commandments of Mikvah and Putting His body forward as a Utensil of Service to God the father.
I believe misleading is all you do in this forum, why you are allowed in here when your posts have nothing to do with helping believers to learn ?, I don't know.
But your tactics of attacking the messenger do not work on me friend, you see I have being on the Word for 53 years of My life , both In  tHe Hebrew teachings and Church teachings, there is very little you can come up with concerning Christianity that I cannot answer from The Root of Jewishness of Christianity.
By the Way there is even a Mikvah Requirement for hunters, I thought you all might want to know that.


----------



## earl (Jul 3, 2010)

Your avoidance of my questions is answer enough . The Torah will not get you to heaven . You need the Christian New Tetament.
Judaism will not get you to heaven . You have too believe in Jesus Christ .
Jewish Law will not get you into heaven . Salvation is by grace .
Mikvah will not get you to heaven
Where have I mislead ? It seems to me that the way you preach being a Jew is the only way or following Jewish rituals, customs or laws will get you into heaven is misleading .
If you have read and studied for 53 years ,you should know the requirements of salvation and be preaching that instead of spreading cultural insignificance .


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 7, 2010)

Okay, so the Mikvah is a ritual bath, in this tradition, and we will stress the word ‘ritual’ here, since all rituals in every single tradition are human in origin, and we will ask again . . . .

Apparently Orthodox Jews are required to bathe on certain occasions.  This makes a bit of sense.  They must do so before the Sabbath, which is once a week – and that seems a bit lax, but it’s the Law, and after each menstrual period – which is once a month, and that seems pretty nasty, if you have to live with someone who only bathes once a month  . . . and this ritual is designed to ‘cleanse’ and ‘purify’ themselves.  Well, Okay.  But most of us bathe daily as a matter of course, and place no ritualistic or religious connotations upon it.  Sometimes a bath is only a bath.

But the Mikvah is not a Baptism.  Orthodox Jews do not dip their babies for the purpose of sanctifying them.  The ritual dipping into the water did not seal their fate as a 
Godly being, and one cannot argue that Baptism was an Orthodox Jewish Rite.  Bathing was. 

I’m in favor of bathing.  Looks like the Orthodox Jews agree.  You have to like them for coming up with that bit, ‘cause way back then, just about everyone had to smell to high heaven . . . but the tradition of the Mikvah doesn’t address the point.  If the living man, Christ, was an Orthodox Jew, and was the half-man and half-God spawn of the Father who impregnated a living adult human Virgin, then why would he seek out a Baptizer, as an adult, at all?  Seems like this whole ‘Mikvah’ bit would have been old hat to him by then.  Or is it that He wasn’t really an Orthodox Jew, because he knew he was actually God, and just played along until he met John, and got the good news?  Sort of.  The news wasn’t all that good.  Or are we starting to get the point that none of this makes even a single lick of sense?

And we’re having a bit of a problem working out the background anyway – Were Joseph and Mary ever married?  By who?  And just who gave the official blessing to this unconsummated but Sacred union, what with marriage being an article of Faith?  And whatever happened to this Joseph fella?  Seems like he dropped out of the story in a hurry.  Can’t much blame him for that – if my ‘wife’ remained a virgin and then turned up pregnant I expect I’d run off the storyboard too.  That sort of cuckolding is certainly grounds for divorce.  But do we have anything to indicate that either Joseph or Mary were Orthodox Jews to begin with?  Or that they decided to raise their Son that way?

Sorry about the questions, but the story in Mark has it that the adult man, not the child, named Jesus, came down to meet up with John the Baptizer, and was there and then clued in to who he actually was.  Until that revelation he did not know.  That is the story, as written.  It says that Jesus was actually Baptized, as an adult man, by John the Baptizer.  It doesn’t say that he was taking a leisurely Mikvah before the Sabbath, to purify himself for the weekend in accordance with the Orthodox Jewish law.  Nice tradition, for smelly folks who needed to be told when to bathe because they were too dumb to figure it out for themselves, but it won’t fly in the face of the question on the table.

So we start over – Under whose authority did John the bug-eating ascetic outcast manage to Baptize God himself, and into which religion did John commit the Soul of the adult Jesus through the dipping into the river Jordan?

Aside: (Proof that there is no God: “why you are allowed in here when your posts have nothing to do with helping believers to learn ?, I don't know.”

Q.E.D.)


----------



## earl (Jul 7, 2010)

''Aside: (Proof that there is no God: “why you are allowed in here when your posts have nothing to do with helping believers to learn ?, I don't know.”''

I'm guessing that if unanswerable questions are continually brought up for discussion by our learned fellow forum members ...

I don't quite understand yet ,how in 2000 years , this is the first time the question has been brought up. And I think the mikvah has probably been around a little longer .

I would think that the question of why ''you'' are allowed in here is self answered . With all the different responses to the question of Christ's baptism , it would appear that no one has learned enough to give a sustainable answer . Even ''I don't know '' can be a learning experience for some .


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 7, 2010)

I have forgottren what the current question is.
I looked but still not sure what the current unanswered, sidestepped question is.

Would you please restate it?    Thanks.


----------



## earl (Jul 7, 2010)

Why was Christ baptized by John the Baptist ?

Or at least that's what I thought it was . LOL


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 7, 2010)

earl said:


> Why was Christ baptized by John the Baptist ?
> 
> Or at least that's what I thought it was . LOL




Matthew 3:  John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" 
15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him. 
16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 


John 4: 34Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work."

*Jesus was baptized because He knew His father wanted Him to be.
And the results prove it.
Immediately, heavens opened and God's Spirit descended.


----------



## crackerdave (Jul 7, 2010)

Did you know that Jesus and John were cousins? Not that it is in any way an answer to the original question, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## earl (Jul 7, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Matthew 3:  John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
> 15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.
> 16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
> 
> ...



To what purpose ?    

cd , yes that is correct which makes the baptism,baptizer and baptizee an even stranger event. If God was pleased ,as Ronnie said, why didn't Jesus in turn baptize John and others ?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 7, 2010)

You guys are playing games.

If I wanted to play games I'd go outside with my 7yo grandson
and play kickball.

Bye.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 7, 2010)

I apologize, Ronnie.
The attempt at levity did not convey.  Deleted.


----------



## earl (Jul 7, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> You guys are playing games.
> 
> If I wanted to play games I'd go outside with my 7yo grandson
> and play kickball.
> ...





Sorry you feel that way . If baptism were that important , there has to be more to it .


----------



## gtparts (Jul 7, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> Matthew 3:  John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
> 15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.
> 16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
> 
> ...





earl said:


> To what purpose ?
> 
> cd , yes that is correct which makes the baptism,baptizer and baptizee an even stranger event. If God was pleased ,as Ronnie said, why didn't Jesus in turn baptize John and others ?



earl, Jesus did it to please God, the Father. That should be sufficient...it is the only one given in Scripture. Please tell me that at some point in your life you did something just to please someone you love.

Why would anyone assume that because Jesus submitted Himself for baptism, it was incumbent upon Jesus to do the same for John and others? 
Jesus did not come to baptize. He came that men might be reconciled to their Creator. Others have been given the responsibility to baptize.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 7, 2010)

Ronnie T said:


> What you're looking for doesn't exist.  And there's good reason for that.
> The Bible wasn't written from that angle.  The Bible is a record of the life of Christ that contains instructions that will lead us to the risen Savior.
> God didn't command Jesus into the desert to be tempted by Satan.
> There's no record of God commanding Jesus to submit to the beating He endured.
> ...


----------



## earl (Jul 7, 2010)

''What you're looking for doesn't exist''

OK


----------



## Israel (Jul 7, 2010)

crackerdave said:


> Did you know that Jesus and John were cousins? Not that it is in any way an answer to the original question, but interesting nonetheless.


John plays a very critical role. Even prenatally. Spirit spoke to spirit, which is why the babe leapt in Elizabeth's womb.
John knew and boldly testified of Jesus' person like none other till Peter made his stunning confession by revelation.
"Behold the Lamb of God", he said. 
And also
"I have need to be baptized of thee"

Yet what do we hear John utter later from prison? After the persecution and imprisonment for this very boldness was wearing him down and taking its toll?
Mat 11:2-6  
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 
And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? 
Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John _again_ those things which ye do hear and see: 
The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. 


If you haven't learned that confessing and holding the testimony of Jesus leads you into trouble in this world, keep going. 
You will also learn after that trouble has come upon you and shaken you that you will be tempted to be offended...but if you find the grace to abide faithful, and find grace to cry out to him in the trial Jesus will again come to you to strengthen your testimony and faith.
The good confession, Jesus is Lord, will always invite spiritual attack and resistance, there is nothing of the spirit of this world that can bear hearing of its judgment.
And its judgment is pronounced in that simple affirmation of he who has openly made a show of their weakness and defeat and also whose very presence is a torment to them.
"was that really God I heard?" is rarely uttered when the crowds are gathered and cheering the Messiah...but later, when you are alone in a cell or with cuffs upon you and men mocking you for being a fool.
But, God is faithful.
 As to Jesus baptism to fulfill all righteousness...if there was ever a man not needing to be cleansed, not needing to outwardly demonstrate any measure of the total congruence of heart that was already perfected within, in other words, a man who needed to do absolutely nothing, but who, for our sakes and the glory of his Father instead chose to do everything he didn't "need" to do, it is Jesus.
As he said, 
Joh 17:19  And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Joh 10:15-18 
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. 

And specifically regarding this "laying down" did he not later testify:
Mat 26:53  Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Here is something to consider about the liberty of Christ, that is as far from compulsion and religious duty as paying taxes are from a man placing a kiss on the lips of his sweetheart:

We all know that Jesus himself testified in 
Joh 12:27  Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Jesus came to die. Yet we know he could have still asked for 12 legions of angels to deliver him...and his Father would have delivered him.
How can Jesus, who came to die...also know he would be heard by God if he chose not to?
How could Jesus, in one sense...seemingly "not" do the will of God...and yet know he'd be heard and delivered by God?

Because that is what the will of God is...FREE.
That is how love works...never of compulsion, always of freedom.
We aren't told to "keep yourselves in the love of God" to make sure we do the "right things"...but because man oh man, if you are not there...you are missing the absolutely only place you will ever know freedom, the only place you will ever know liberty from the tyranny of the "have to's", the only place you will ever know God doen't do one thing because he has to...but that everything, from the scourgings to the cross are all done for JOY.
And until one has been won by the foolishness of the cross to see that God has chosen to hide everything of eternal glory and wonder, and liberty, and joy, and delight in the only place the natural man will not look, in that place that only Jesus is given the privilege of leading us...we will miss it.
And we will still be led about by the weak and beggarly elements of don't touch, don't eat...which is only a testimony of what is passing away.
God wants us to see what is...not later...but right now, and already and eternally...finished.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 9, 2010)

Ronnie:  “Jesus was baptized because He knew His father wanted Him to be.
And the results prove it.
Immediately, heavens opened and God's Spirit descended.”

I read that part, even though it is fragmented in a couple of different places, but you still have to now ask some hard questions about quite a few other parts.  You quote Matthew and John, but wholly ignore the story in Mark.  If God’s Spirit descended upon Jesus upon his Baptism by John the Baptizer, as an adult, as Mark described, then Jesus first found out about His Divinity there and then, when the ‘Heavens Opened.’  So everything that is described and attributed before that moment is conjecture cut out of whole cloth.  This sort of tosses the classic ‘Christmas Story’ of His Divinity being signaled by the Star of Bethlehem upon birth into a hat.  And every other story of anything and everything that may have happened before the ‘heavens opened’ to him at the moment of his Baptism surely must be called into question.  Can we sustain a story in which the ‘Magi’ knew, before Jesus himself did? Not so much.  Etcetera.

 And if God the Father’s Spirit did not ‘descend’ until this moment, how can He have ‘known’ what his Father wanted?  Who told Him that His Father wanted Him to be Baptized, before the appearance of the Father at that moment?

And no, Sir, this is not playing games – this is the honest asking of a basic question that cuts to the heart of both ritualism and belief.  I was Baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  This Baptism was meant to initiate me into the tradition of Christianity, as an infant.  Christ himself could not have been Baptized, by John, into Christianity, since it did not exist yet.  So the question is completely valid – under whose authority, and into which traditional belief system, did John Baptize Christ Himself?  The Bible says that Christ was Baptized, and became self-aware upon that occurrence.  As an adult.  

We ask only how that can be.  It makes no sense whatsoever to a simple reader of this Book.

Jesus cannot have done it to please God the Father, since it wasn’t until afterwards that the heavens opened to Him, and He was, then, told the News.  Quite the miracle, that worked both backwards and forwards in the various stories, but I’m just observing and asking, you see . . .

And the whole question of why Jesus, who is a traditional part of the Trinity, and is a God himself in some forms of common consent, would need even the slightest ratification in the form of a Baptism by a mere man seems to be being avoided altogether . . . 

The whole ‘Mikvah’ thing was an interesting distraction, and I freely acknowledge that the whole idea of ritualizing the idea of taking a bath now and then was a fine idea, but it hardly demonstrates a connection to any power higher than hygiene.  If the ‘heavens opened’ when one took their first bath ever after thirty-some years, that is hardly a revelation.  Everyone nearby was certainly relieved.  

I jest, there, of course, but the question itself holds some very important implications, and is not asked in the spirit of playing any games, but more of clarifying the Stories told, and attempting to sort out just which one of these many Sacred Books of the Bible is telling the truth, and why others are telling entirely different stories.


----------

