The Baptism of Christ

[Dawnofhope]

It is written in the Gospel of St. Matthew 3:13-15

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

What is the wisdom of this: since Christ possessed all essential perfection, why did He need baptism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is written in the Gospel of St. Matthew 3:13-15

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

What is the wisdom of this: since Christ possessed all essential perfection, why did He need baptism?

If I remember correctly, baptism means conversion of the heart. 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:21 Uses Spirit as the foundation of baptism. Jesus christ made a motion (like with the miracles) and lesson that to be submersed in water (life as in saving Isrealites of thirst Symbolism of water) is to be right with god. He did it for others rather than for himself. Like the Passion. Not for himself but for those who believed.

It was done for others as with all motions of christ rather than for himself. That and in order for christ to be with god, (since christ is not god ) he needs to be baptized to take on the mission his father gave him (for him I am now pleased; the dove type thing Luke 3:21-23) Jesus had perfect faith in god because he was baptized in spirit rather than flesh. (Spirit/water rather than cleansing of dirt).

Jesus wasn't god so in order to complete god's mission, he needed to be baptized (and bonded) him to god together making the two one.

He did so as a lesson for others to be baptized in water/spirit (assuming holy spirit) and god/spirit in conversion so that others would do the same as christ later being the "water" rather than physical water when he was walking about.

As for the details, historical timeline dates, and who is the father of who is the father of who, that's all yours

 

[Dawnofhope]

If I remember correctly, baptism means conversion of the heart. 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:21 Uses Spirit as the foundation of baptism. Jesus christ made a motion (like with the miracles) and lesson that to be submersed in water (life as in saving Isrealites of thirst Symbolism of water) is to be right with god. He did it for others rather than for himself. Like the Passion. Not for himself but for those who believed.

It was done for others as with all motions of christ rather than for himself. That and in order for christ to be with god, (since christ is not god ) he needs to be baptized to take on the mission his father gave him (for him I am now pleased; the dove type thing Luke 3:21-23) Jesus had perfect faith in god because he was baptized in spirit rather than flesh. (Spirit/water rather than cleansing of dirt).

Jesus wasn't god so in order to complete god's mission, he needed to be baptized (and bonded) him to god together making the two one.

He did so as a lesson for others to be baptized in water/spirit (assuming holy spirit) and god/spirit in conversion so that others would do the same as christ later being the "water" rather than physical water when he was walking about.

As for the details, historical timeline dates, and who is the father of who is the father of who, that's all yours

You sure you're not a Christian!?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You sure you're not a Christian!?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As god as my witness But thank you

 

[Ellen Brown]

I learned something in this exchange, and would like to contribute the following: With the Christ submitting to Baptism, everyone else is without excuse. It also confirms his status as Son. In the next exchanges, God says, "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased". In my opinion it also says the idea of the Trinity is not true.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I learned something in this exchange, and would like to contribute the following: With the Christ submitting to Baptism, everyone else is without excuse. It also confirms his status as Son. In the next exchanges, God says, "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased". In my opinion it also says the idea of the Trinity is not true.

There is certainly a clear distinction between the Son and the Father throughout the Gospels. There was no mention of the Trinity at all and Muhammad was clear in correcting this misunderstanding.

Christ was not in need of Baptism but in the example He set, He affirmed the institution of Baptism and its necessity at that time.

As for the meaning of Baptism it was for purification, absolution of sins and to assist its participants to recognise the coming of the Kingdom of Christ.

There is no mention of the Baptism of Christ in the Quran so in the Islamic dispensation it was not emphasised at all. I believe there were other rituals that performed the same purpose. I explored this concept further here...

Baptism: How necessary is it?

 

[The Anointed]

I learned something in this exchange, and would like to contribute the following: With the Christ submitting to Baptism, everyone else is without excuse. It also confirms his status as Son. In the next exchanges, God says, "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased". In my opinion it also says the idea of the Trinity is not true.

No, God did not say; "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased," what God said was; "You are my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

The Roman church of Emperor Constantine, wants you to think that Jesus was not born of the spirit as a son of God on the day of his baptism, but that he was actually born 'Son of God' with his physical birth. That's why they added their interpolation (As was supposed) in Luke 3: 23.

”Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth, and wanted you to believe that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph ben Heli..

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets Showing that they were a later interpolation are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, when he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan, and the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, THIS DAY (The day of his baptism) I have begotten thee."

 

[Ellen Brown]

There is certainly a clear distinction between the Son and the Father throughout the Gospels. There was no mention of the Trinity at all and Muhammad was clear in correcting this misunderstanding.

Christ was not in need of Baptism but in the example He set, He affirmed the institution of Baptism and its necessity at that time.

As for the meaning of Baptism it was for purification, absolution of sins and to assist its participants to recognise the coming of the Kingdom of Christ.

There is no mention of the Baptism of Christ in the Quran so in the Islamic dispensation it was not emphasised at all. I believe there were other rituals that performed the same purpose. I explored this concept further here...

Baptism: How necessary is it?

The Muslims don't do any sort of Baptism. The prayers are 5 times a day, and work out to about 10-12 minutes a session. Ritual Wudu (Washing) is usually not done every time, and a woman on her mense can not pray. Were it up to me, I'd give them a pass on trying to please God, and him decide.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No, God did not say; "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased," what God said was; "You are my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

The Roman church of Emperor Constantine, wants you to think that Jesus was not born of the spirit as a son of God on the day of his baptism, but that he was actually born 'Son of God' with his physical birth. That's why they added their interpolation (As was supposed) in Luke 3: 23.

”Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth, and wanted you to believe that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph ben Heli..

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets Showing that they were a later interpolation are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, when he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan, and the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, THIS DAY (The day of his baptism) I have begotten thee."

I'm going to be much more respectful to you than I want to. I am responsible for my own path to God, and no one can dictate it to me. I will stand in front of God beside Jesus the Christ beside me. You do not get to dictate what version of the Bible I use. I use the KJV and it is good enough for me. I couldn't even figure out what version you use, but that is your free choice and I support you in that. At least, I doubt that you are JW.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No, God did not say; "Here is my son, in whom I am well pleased," what God said was; "You are my son, THIS DAY I have begotten thee."

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

The Roman church of Emperor Constantine, wants you to think that Jesus was not born of the spirit as a son of God on the day of his baptism, but that he was actually born 'Son of God' with his physical birth. That's why they added their interpolation (As was supposed) in Luke 3: 23.

”Luke 3:23; (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,. The (AS WAS SUPPOSED) in brackets, was a later interpolation by those who believed the false teaching of the so-called virgin birth, and wanted you to believe that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph ben Heli..

In the different translations of the KJV into Arabic, Afrikaan, Zulu, etc and even some of the more modern English translations, such as the Good News Bible, the words (As was supposed) have been retained, but the brackets Showing that they were a later interpolation are removed, thus by, making those words appear to be the declaration of Luke, while the serious biblical students know that they were not written by Luke, but were a later interpolation and a corruption of the Holy Scriptures, by those Christians, who refuse to accept that Jesus was not a God who became a man, but a man, born of human parents, who was later CHOSEN by the Lord our saviour ‘The Son of Man,’ as his heir and successor, when he came up out of the baptismal waters of the Jordan, and the spirit of the Lord descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say; "You are my son, THIS DAY (The day of his baptism) I have begotten thee."

I went back and looked up your Bible version and web page. Why do you defy the very words of Jesus Christ in criticising other denominations?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm going to be much more respectful to you than I want to. I am responsible for my own path to God, and no one can dictate it to me. I will stand in front of God beside Jesus the Christ beside me. You do not get to dictate what version of the Bible I use. I use the KJV and it is good enough for me. I couldn't even figure out what version you use, but that is your free choice and I support you in that. At least, I doubt that you are JW.

I thought you might like this Alberta Hunter classic

I must say the KJV remains my favourite version of the Bible.

 

[The Anointed]

I'm going to be much more respectful to you than I want to. I am responsible for my own path to God, and no one can dictate it to me. I will stand in front of God beside Jesus the Christ beside me. You do not get to dictate what version of the Bible I use. I use the KJV and it is good enough for me. I couldn't even figure out what version you use, but that is your free choice and I support you in that. At least, I doubt that you are JW.

You got that right kiddo, I ain't no JW. And you can be as disrespectful to me as you so choose, believe me, I will lose no sleep over anything you have to say. If you choose to believe the KJV, which has been shown to have more erroneous interpretations and erroneous translations than the majority of Bibles, apart from the GNB, that is your God given right.

As long as you live according to the teachings of the Lord as spoken through the mouth of his obedient servant Jesus, which is, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," you will be alright.

Deuteronomy 18-19; KJV; "I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put 'MY WORDS' in his mouth; and he will speak everything I command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken to MY WORDS that he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

 

[Dawnofhope]

Deuteronomy 18-19; KJV; "I will raise up for them a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put 'MY WORDS' in his mouth; and he will speak everything I command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken to MY WORDS that he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

The question about which translation is best and why is of course a valid one. Another thread perhaps.

I'm sure you've had this question before, but what's with the annointed title?

 

[Desert Snake]

It is written in the Gospel of St. Matthew 3:13-15

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

What is the wisdom of this: since Christ possessed all essential perfection, why did He need baptism?

My take on this, I'm not baptized, by the way, is that Jesus was demonstrating, 'this is ok to do'... that's just my feeling on this, I don't believe that Jesus was actually saying, 'this is necessary for salvation', or what not.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My take on this, [I'm not baptized, by the way, is that Jesus was demonstrating, 'this is ok to do'... that's just my feeling on this, I don't believe that Jesus was actually saying, 'this is necessary for salvation', or what not.

I have been baptised...twice. Once as an infant and then again as an adult when I was a Christian many years ago.

I don't believe its necessary for salvation for a moment. I have no doubt that Christ Himself wanted to establish the practice amonsgt His followers and that's why He led by example. But that was two thousand years ago. Its original purpose of promoting purity, absolution of sins and embracing the Kingdom of Christ appears lost.

 

[The Anointed]

1 Peter 3: 20-21; to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-

The baptism was symbolic of the flood, when, according to the bible, The old man Adam was submerged in the baptismal waters of the world, and Enoch the righteous arose in the bodies of his eight descendants. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives, who were all descendants of Enoch's 6 sons, Methusulah, Rigam, Riman, Urchan, Cherminion and Giadad.

Enoch, who was carried to the very throne of the most High in the creation and anointed as his successor and translated to an immortal body of Glorious light in order that he should never experience death.

 

[metis]

What is the wisdom of this: since Christ possessed all essential perfection, why did He need baptism?

Besides being a ritual dealing with the forgiveness of sin, it also was an introductory ritual that typically involved a lifestyle change that also was and is used in Judaism with the mikvah. Jesus' ministry started right after his baptism.

 

[Kenny]

Here is a commentary:

Matthew 3:15

And Jesus answering, said unto him
This is an Hebrew way of speaking, often used in the Old Testament, and answers to (rmayw) (Ney) ; see ( Job 3:1 ) . He replied to John, who had made use of very forbidding words, after this manner,

suffer it to be so now;
let me have my request; do not go on to object, but comply with my desire; let it be done now, immediately, directly, at this present time; do not put me off with any excuse; it is a proper season for it, even "now", since the time is not yet come that I am to baptize with the Holy Ghost; and besides, thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. It became John to administer the ordinance of baptism to Christ, as he was his forerunner, and the only administrator of it, and that he might fulfil the ministry which he had received; and as it became Christ to fulfil all righteousness, moral and ceremonial, and baptism being a part of his Father's will, which he came to do, it became him to fulfil this also. And since it became Christ, it cannot be unbecoming us to submit to this ordinance; and since he looked upon it as a part of righteousness to be fulfilled by him, it ought to be attended to by all those who would be accounted followers of him. Christ having strongly urged the conveniency and equity of the administration of baptism to him, which showed his eager desire after it, and the lowliness of his mind; and John being convinced, and overcome by the force of his reasoning, agrees to his baptism;

then he suffered him,
i.e. to be baptized in water by him, as he had requested, and accordingly did administer it to him.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is written in the Gospel of St. Matthew 3:13-15

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

What is the wisdom of this: since Christ possessed all essential perfection, why did He need baptism?

I am working on a reply, but I have not finished it. Would you prefer the short version or the long version. I agree with what Metis has said.