The Baptist ?

[sandy whitelinger]

well if you believe Jesus was sinless, then he certainly could not have been getting baptised as a symbol of his repentance for his sins.


So his baptism must have symbolised something....but certainly not repentance from sin for 'repent' means to 'turn away' from sins committed.

That's fine but it doesn't justify what you offered as being the correct answer. I was intrigued by the posit that Jesus, as a member of the nation of Israel, was in a collective covenant with Jehovah but the author then failed to relate it with a Scriptural basis to the baptism of Jesus.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

if you want to call it a consequence, thats fine. Its both a consequence and a punishment.

There can be no further punishment after death for the bible says the dead know nothing...they have no knowledge or memory and no thought.

Yet everyone still gets resurrected to stand in judgement before God. Those who do not believe in Jesus are sent to the Lake of Fire.

o how can someone suffer in that condition?

Who said anything about suffering?

 

[Pegg]

Yet everyone still gets resurrected to stand in judgement before God. Those who do not believe in Jesus are sent to the Lake of Fire.

Who said anything about suffering?

When they are resurrected, it will be under Christs rulership after the destruction of all man made governments. But let me ask the question again... if death acquits a person of all sins,

when they are resurrected, what are they being judged for?

 

[Pegg]

That's fine but it doesn't justify what you offered as being the correct answer. I was intrigued by the posit that Jesus, as a member of the nation of Israel, was in a collective covenant with Jehovah but the author then failed to relate it with a Scriptural basis to the baptism of Jesus.

i did underline the point:

Jesus was there doing something more than what was required of him under the Law. He was presenting himself to his Father Jehovah to do his Father’s “will” with reference to the offering of his own “prepared” body and with regard to doing away with animal sacrifices that were offered according to the Law.
The apostle Paul comments: “By the said ‘will’ we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.” (Heb 10:10) The Father’s will for Jesus also involved activity in connection with the Kingdom, and for this service too Jesus presented himself. (Lu 4:43; 17:20,*21)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

i did underline the point:

And where is the Scriptural backing for baptism preparing the body?

 

[Pegg]

And where is the Scriptural backing for baptism preparing the body?

The apostle Paul applies the words of Psalm 40:7 to Jesus Christ

Heb 10:5 So when he (the Messiah) comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. 6 You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offerings.’ 7 Then I said: ‘Look! I have come (in the scroll it is written about me) to do your will, O God.’” 8 After first saying: “You did not want nor did you approve of sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin offerings”—sacrifices that are offered according to the Law— 9 then he says: “Look! I have come to do your will.” He does away with what is first in order to establish what is second. 10 By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time

Jesus baptism could only have symbolised the presentation of himself to fulfill Gods will. He wasnt a sinner, and he didnt need to be prepared to accept the Messiah because he was the Messiah.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The apostle Paul applies the words of Psalm 40:7 to Jesus Christ



Jesus baptism could only have symbolised the presentation of himself to fulfill Gods will. He wasnt a sinner, and he didnt need to be prepared to accept the Messiah because he was the Messiah.

Just reemphasizing what you have already said is of no help. Would you be equating the washing of Jesus to the High priest's washing of himself before presenting himself to the Lord in the Holy of Holies to the baptism of Jesus thereby equating Jesus as the pure sacrifice offered to God for sin?

 

[Pegg]

Just reemphasizing what you have already said is of no help. Would you be equating the washing of Jesus to the High priest's washing of himself before presenting himself to the Lord in the Holy of Holies to the baptism of Jesus thereby equating Jesus as the pure sacrifice offered to God for sin?

no. The human high priest was a sinner, and had to wash himself before he entered the presence of God.

Christ was not a sinner, he needed no washing. Quite simply, his baptism symbolised the presentation of himself to do Gods will.

I can't put it any simpler then that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

no. The human high priest was a sinner, and had to wash himself before he entered the presence of God.

Christ was not a sinner, he needed no washing. Quite simply, his baptism symbolised the presentation of himself to do Gods will.

I can't put it any simpler then that.

So, what in Scripture equates the preparation of His body with baptism?

 

[Pegg]

So, what in Scripture equates the preparation of His body with baptism?

Jesus baptism wasnt for preparing his body.

God prepared him a body when he created him as Paul said in hebrews. And the purpose of Jesus being born into this world was for him to be a sacrifice for mankind.

"YOU prepared a body for me...Look, I am come to do your will"

Jesus baptism could only have been for presenting himself to do Gods will.
It wasnt for repentance, it wasnt to clean him from sin... it was to fulfill his purpose in being here.

 

[Katzpur]

Well you see, I have problem with this because John was of immaculate conception. not of ADAM. And Jesus must have trusted john to baptise him because the gospels tell us John baptised jesus the so called son of god?
And what is more we should apply the same question about jesus , he was the son of god also immaculately conceived. So what sins had either of these two boys committed for them to both believe they were in need of baptism?
So what you stated above has to be wrong according to the scriptures.

Regardless of whether John was "of immaculate conception" or not (I personally don't believe he was, but it really doesn't matter). He was a human being and not divine, by any stretch of the imagination. He therefore would have been less than perfect and would have been in need of baptism "for the remission of sins." He would also, of course, have needed a Savior, just as all of the rest of us do.

 

[Katzpur]

One thing that bothers me about this, I always hear 'free will' invoked, and stated such that 'we' have a choice to sin or not. Yet the same people will then say something like what you have, that Adam sinned and so we all are sinners.

How are these not contradictory? Do I have free will to choose not to sin?

We all have free will, and therefore a choice as to whether or not to sin. However, we are also mortal and and therefore predisposed to be sinful. That doesn't mean we're born guilty of something we never did wrong, but it does mean that even the best of us at times do, in fact, choose evil over good.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Jesus baptism wasnt for preparing his body.

God prepared him a body when he created him as Paul said in hebrews. And the purpose of Jesus being born into this world was for him to be a sacrifice for mankind.

"YOU prepared a body for me...Look, I am come to do your will"

Jesus baptism could only have been for presenting himself to do Gods will.
It wasnt for repentance, it wasnt to clean him from sin... it was to fulfill his purpose in being here.

Yet you offered the Scripture of a body being prepared as justification for the baptism of Jesus and now you are retracting that.

 

[Pegg]

Yet you offered the Scripture of a body being prepared as justification for the baptism of Jesus and now you are retracting that.

the initial question was why did Jesus get baptised.

Baptism for us is a symbol of repentance of sins and for Jesus it is.....? repentance for his sins???

Why did John object to baptising Jesus?

But why did Jesus want to be baptised anyway?

The scriptures dont specifically say "Jesus was baptized as a symbol of such and such '
But they do tell us that Jesus was sinless. So we know that his baptism could not have symbolized repentance as it does for us.


The book of hebrews gives us the clue when Paul links the Psalm to Jesus "You prepared a body for me, LOOK, i am come to do your will"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

the initial question was why did Jesus get baptised.

Baptism for us is a symbol of repentance of sins and for Jesus it is.....? repentance for his sins???

Why did John object to baptising Jesus?

But why did Jesus want to be baptised anyway?

The scriptures dont specifically say "Jesus was baptized as a symbol of such and such '
But they do tell us that Jesus was sinless. So we know that his baptism could not have symbolized repentance as it does for us.


The book of hebrews gives us the clue when Paul links the Psalm to Jesus "You prepared a body for me, LOOK, i am come to do your will"

I like symbology better since the Law pointed towards Christ as a sacrifice.

 

[monti]

Im sure not everyone was happy about a new teacher.

The zealots weren't happy with him, at all.

So the authors said this, not JtB correct?

And which book?

Sorry by "the books" I meant Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

I see it as Jesus taking over JtB movement.

This is what I believe. I believe the incident at the Jordan was confrontational.

We will never know who said what, and what we can attribute to either one.

We can glean more when read in another context.

 

[Muffled]

Adams father was God

But after Adam turned away, he became a sinner by rebelling against Gods law. And from that point on, all of his children were likewise born in that state of imperfection.

Hence why Jesus is the only other human to be born on this earth without sin. Jesus did not have a human father, like Adam, he was created perfect, but unlike Adam, he didnt rebel.

I believe this is only ture in the sense of God being his creator, although that may not be a direct creation since the gods claim to have done it. I believe his actual father is lost in antiquity and only God knows who it was.

 

[Pegg]

I believe this is only ture in the sense of God being his creator, although that may not be a direct creation since the gods claim to have done it. I believe his actual father is lost in antiquity and only God knows who it was.

the bible says that God created Adam from the dust. So yes, he was a creation and had no earthly father....unless you want to consider the 'dust' to his father, then by all means.

 

[monti]

he wasnt of immaculate conception. His aged mother and father had their procreative powers restored.

Where in the scriptures does it tell us that "His aged mother and father had their procreative powers restored".