Water Baptism: What's the big deal?

when a convert accepts the call to be baptized

The word "call" can be interpreted in many ways. Most Christians would most likely love to wax lyrical about God informing His subject that "it is time to be as one with Me" .

Of course, in reality "the call" is nothing more than a voice within the head of someone who is impressionable, naive, gullible and overcome with a shot of addrenalin-infused elation at finding his or herself's place in life.

Religious organisations are just as enthusiastic at the prospect of sucking a new member into its fold and what better way to put the seal on the contract by performing a ritualistic indoctrination ceremony. From this point onwards the (previously) lost soul is reminded that there is no turning back from salvation as the consequences would be dire.

Delusion is a common trait of the weak and confued and Churches certainly don't miss a trick in capitalising on it.

It's definitely true that many church folk have been duped. Here's the problem; some of the dupesters were, or are, atheists. 

 It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure

Yet somehow managed to find themselves in the  position and have the authority to baptist (dupe) others. Strange it is that although the dupester is in this position one has to ask where he himself got his authority to  dupe/baptise. It says a lot about "spiritual cleansing" and being received by god, and god knowing his own, doesn't it?

But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

Who baptised John the Baptist? 

Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?

Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16

Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

What caused John to believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place? Matthew 3:13

Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?

This thread is not meant to suggest the only, or ultimate reason for water baptism. But like many commands in the Bible, suggest a lesson.

First off, when a convert accepts the call to be baptized, they are not submitting to being cleansed by the H2o they will be submerged in. If someone is baptized in a swimming pool, the water doesn't transform into a divine detergent. It remains the same water with the same  chlorine. If it's a river or lake, it will remain the same murky water, and probably won't make much difference to the nearby fish. Water baptism itself won't save anyone's soul. It's not ultimately necessary for salvation. If it was, the thief on the cross who repented would not have been allowed entrance into paradise.

It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure. But the water itself does no spiritual cleansing. Baptism is symbolic, and an act of obedience.

When one becomes a believer, the point where God meets them in a divine way, they find they have a calling.

But lets stick to the actual point of the topic .

Who baptised John the Baptist? 

Where did John the Baptist get his authority to baptise anyone?

First off, I'm wondering if you read my post, or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.

The Bible doesn't get into specifics as far as who may have baptized him in the ceremonial sense.

Scripture does point out that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.

And the reason I'm wondering if you actually read the O.P.,

If John was not ceremonially baptized, then his position would be similar to the repentant thief on the cross.

his baptism may have occurred while in the womb.

Can you explain why  the  " only begotten Son,"i.e. the son of GOD and born of a pure virgin  would need to be cleansed and "made pure" symbolically or otherwise? John 3:16

. Thus, Jesus was acting as a model of obedience. And again, others may have more insight.

Why was  John the baptist "the greatest ever born of woman"  so confused as to whom should be baptising whom?

John the Baptist was still human. The confusion would be hardly startling. He recognized who Jesus was to some degree when he leaped in the

womb.

Who wouldn't be confused (or overwhelmed) under those circumstances?

Why had John  forbid Jesus to be baptized in the first place? Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee,..."https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A13-17&version=KJV

Can you explain why John  the Baptist said Jesus should baptise him?

I don't think this was an issue of legalism, e.g., the rule book on water baptism states that the Son of God has to baptize me, or we're breaking the rules. I would refer back to my statement of John the Baptist simply being overwhelmed at the prospect. And of course others may have more insight.

or are just responding to a thread about baptism using common skeptic questions.

Water Baptism is a Luciferian rite, intended to show obeisance to the fish god Dagon, a.k.a. Oannes, a.k.a. Heru (son of Asar a.k.a. Osiris.) Remember that when Asar died, he was thrown into the water and reemerged as Heru. Every time these so-called "Christians" perform a water baptism, it's surreptitious veneration of Heru. John's mention of water during Baptism was metaphorical, not literal, or even symbolic.

So you don't know that answers to questions on this subject but just happen to know what baptism is all about; " obedience" according to only you.

So was John the Baptist baptised or not?

I did. it was to do with what YOU believe and your opinions about baptism. 

It does. It also says that he - while in the womb -  John recognised Jesus and kicked with excitement. 

John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13

Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 

So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.

No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

"When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

Really!?

But he had some kind of authority to perform this ritual. He had been doing it some time before Jesus came to him.

Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?

And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:

"It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.

Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea

and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".

I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.

Are you of the opinion that historically speaking, John the Baptist did not baptize anyone?

Or that there was no John the Baptist?

Okay. I (think) I understand what you're saying now.

Well, if you think I'm implying that Baptism requires submergence into water, then no. I'm not.

Christ commands His followers to be Baptized. Whether it's submerged into water or not, the believer is to obey that command. The reason I referred to being submerged in a pool, lake, or river was simply because that's generally how it's done nowadays. John who performed the Baptism of Repentance Baptized in a river. I would say those being Baptized probably were submerged. But whether they were or not is not the issue. My point was simply that the water doesn't do the cleansing.

So was John the Baptist baptised or not?

Like I said, the Bible doesn't reveal that info.

I think the problem is you're trying to turn this into a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Water Baptism may not have been required of him. Are you of the opinion that if a man stranded on a deserted island becomes a believer, he cannot ultimately be saved because there's no one else on the island to Baptize him?

John1 : 29 “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”;

yet appeared confused telling Jesus that he - Jesus-  should be  baptising him - John, Why?

And so far you haven't explained what is was that caused John to even believe that Jesus should be baptizing him in the first place?Matthew 3:13

Sorry to try and answer your question with another question, but do you see any connection here?

Imagine a priest in a Catholic church confessional booth,[.......................]

Not John "the greatest man"  born of woman and ""more than a prophet" . 

Being the greatest man didn't mean he was perfect. Moses was the most humblest man. He still had his problems.

So that is a non answer then. You don't know why John refused Jesus a baptism and you are struggling to explain why John believed that it was supposed to be the other way around and that Jesus should baptise him.

John did not refuse to Baptize Jesus. And if I'm struggling, it's just trying to explain it in a way you'll understand.

No, that would be John the baptist himself who turned out to be the skeptic when locked up in Herod's cell, wasn't it.?

"When John, who was in prison, he'd heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples  to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”.Matthew 11:1-3

Really!?

Yes. [.......] Are you still having a problem with the notion of John although being the greatest, was still not perfect?

Well we don't know that, but if that was the case, why then would he even think that Jesus should baptise him a second time?

If John thought he needed to be baptized a second time (like if he somehow knew in the womb he was Baptized in the Holy Spirit), don't you think he would have had a fellow believer Baptize him (to make it ceremonially official)?

It's apparent that what John meant was, if anyone should be doing the baptizing between you and I, I should be the one baptized by you.

And is there a single piece of biblical evidence to support that? and you appear to have skirted your own explanation where you state:

"It is a symbol of being washed, cleansed, and made pure". So this hardly explains my question of why the Only Son of god would need to be cleansed, washed and made pure, does it.

Yes, I do think there's evidence to support that. Jesus' life was all about obedience to the Father.

Phillippians 2:8

And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.

I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.

Six times you mention baptism /abidance. Yet the gospels NEVER MENTION OBEDIENCE along with baptism , they tell us something entirely different. I did read your op, but have you read the scriptures?

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea

and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

You see? it has EVERYTHING to do with forgiveness of sins and washing away sins. Not a single mention of "obedience".

You gave 3 verses that are direct commands to be Baptized, and you don't think obedience plays a part here? Wow! Was this apparent command actually optional?

I don't think I made any reference to John's mentioning of water during Baptism.

I never said that you did. The association of water to Baptism is germane to this thread's subject, isn't it?

I'm not suggesting that you were implying anything. I'm merely using your statements as a backdrop or context to submit my posits. The ancient Hebrews have long used bodies of water for ritualistic cleansing, but Baptisms were never associated with water outside of metaphorical language. So when asked, "Water Baptism: What's the Big Deal?" I'm stating that the big deal with Water Baptism is that it's not Hebraic, Abrahamic, Judaic, or even Christian. I'm stating that the submergence and reemergence from bodies of water, as is typical with Water Baptism, is Luciferian symbolism. It represents the reincarnation of Asar as his son Heru. Asar is submerged into the water after his death, and reemerges as Heru. Heru is also known by the monikers "Oannes" and "Dagon" the fish god. Thus the conclusion I extend from my premises is that Water Baptism is a veiled Luciferian ritual. 

Atheistic and theistic con artists alike.

As far as your conclusion that the Water Baptism practiced by John the Baptist or Christians in general is veiled Luciferian symbolism

And, I can respect your opinion. I don't see any reason to accept it as anything but your opinion.

I don't see any reason to think that the reincarnation of Asar has anything to do with Christ's command for His followers to be Baptized, unless you can show me otherwise.

Forgive me if these fall into the category of it should be so obvious, but I definitely would like clarification.

When you say so-called "Christians", this could mean false Christians (which I think is usually the case). Or, there really is no such thing as a Christian. (We're just unaware Luciferian practitioners). I'm not even sure how important this is to your conclusion of veiled Luciferian ritual.

So I assume what you're suggesting is that when I was Baptized, I, and the ministry Baptizing me were unknowingly practicing a Luciferian rite. And John the Baptist the same.

What's not clear is whether or not you're stating that John was unbeknownst to us Christians, in on this Luciferian rite so to speak.

Let me clarify: I'm not at all alleging that John was complicit in the creation of this Luciferian rite. I'm suggesting that the association of water with Baptism--particularly John's mention--is being used by Luciferians to veil their Luciferian rite as a Christian one. One such example would be Catholicism. Catholicism is paganism. Catholicism is Luciferian. Of course, their Luciferian rites and rituals extend beyond just Water Baptism (e.g. prayers to Mary, the Eucharist, the pope and cardinals head dresses and staffs, magisterial privilege, etc.)

As far as parishioners, I can only suspect that they are unwitting in these Luciferian rituals. If you were baptized by being submerged into a body of water, then yes, you were (unwittingly) practicing a Luciferian ritual.

I don't think I have any real argument with you that I can tell at the moment. Christians using the same method  of Baptism (submerging-reemerging) is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Unless there's an argument of copying from/stealing from. Then it would be like any other pagan practice/ceremony/holiday/mythology copying argument.

(As a side-note, I'm not aware of them practicing submergence in Baptism).

And an issue with some atheists. I've heard an atheist say when asked if they had been born again, said yes, because they were Baptized. The atheist went on to argue that if an astronaut tried to become born again while orbiting, they couldn't because they wouldn't have the water, or necessary amount of water, or proper facility to get Baptized.

And in doing so, unwitting Christians who believe that they are cleansing their spirits are in fact practicing a Luciferian ritual when they are submerged into water.

I know that you're arguing that Baptism has a spiritual significance beyond its ritualistic aspects. And I agree.

I'm arguing that John's words are being used by Luciferians to conflate water submergence with Baptism.

I actually normally agree with your assessments about religious sacraments especially in the context of Catholicism but Baptism is actually quite universal because of its meaning. In that sense I believe that its more of an individual symbolic gesture even though it can be utilized by any number of cults (including Catholics). The meaning of Baptism has universal appeal, it's not really specific to any one claim or Luciferian rituals. Therefore I believe it to be a more pure practice, more of a commitment or outward sign of appreciation and renewal which agrees with the individuals intent. In this context I don't believe it belongs to Luciferians. 

I see, that's interesting (should have read lol), without reading through this thread what is it John was referencing and what does he mean my Baptism? or how is that achieved according to John? 

Let me clarify: I am not at all arguing that Baptism in and of itself is a Luciferian rite. I'm arguing that the conflation of water submergence to Baptism is a manifestation of Luciferian influence; water submergence and reemergence is symbolic of Asar's reincarnation.

When John states in Matthew 3:11 that he'd baptize with water of repentance, he also stated that someone mightier than him would baptize with the holy spirit and fire. Why are then no Christians walking into fire?

Because the language, "water" and "fire" are clearly metaphorical, and intended as such. What does John mean by Baptism? Complete spiritual acceptance of God. How is this achieved? If you are referring to a specific ritual, he doesn't mention any.