The Case of John the Baptist

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret



.
Stephen, 

Sorry to interject into your thread about John the Baptist.

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

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

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

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



.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen


Cleansing in water....What a bizarre thing to do....Who ever thought of that.....Give the guy a certificate.
#4
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
This John bloke found a way to make a buck or two.


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

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

#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.
Who said this and where was it said? 
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.
Who said this and where was it said? 

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


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

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


Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Cleansing in water....What a bizarre thing to do....Who ever thought of that.....Give the guy a certificate.

Maybe they did, Vic. I hadn't thought of that. but the bible, like many other things is silent on the matter.   But  this would prove his credentials  wouldn't it.. 
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Tradesecret
Debs correct. 

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

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

Dismiss the obvious in pursuit of the fantastic.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Yep the bible is silent on a lot of things....Which in fairness is no more than one would expect from such a naive hypothesis.
#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions. Ok I will leave. You are not a teacher. You don't have an answer. You just make it up. 
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions.


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



You are not a teacher.

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


You don't have an answer.


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


You just make it up. 

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

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

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

So you go sulk and ponder.  And then come back when you have dried your tears and feel grown up enough to take on this ambiguous verse from Jesus himself.
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions. I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything. 

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

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

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

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

#13
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This John bloke found a way to make a buck or two.


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

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

Pope on a Rope! Wash with it and go straight to heaven!
#14
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Is 20£ too high an asking price?
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Gods are made up.

Religious myths are largely made up.

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

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

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


Topic's author
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who baptized John?

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

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

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


You just make it up. 

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

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

 So did I make up that biblical verse or not? 



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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

 
So yes, I think you are making it up.

WTF HAVE I MADE UP!



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


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

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

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


 



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





Just thought I'd  let you know. 

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

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

There are other modern biblical examples too.




#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
It's a question the priests were unwilling to answer.

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

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

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

Jesus knew the priests weren't ready to charge John with blasphemy (perhaps due to John's popularity), and made a bet that they wouldn't charge him either if he pointed that out.
Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
It's a question the priests were unwilling to answer.
That's not the point of the thread or the question. The point is that Jesus is, one way or another confirming John had been baptised.  But did this also then qualify John to baptise others? And would he have had to have been baptised himself before being qualified to baptising others? 


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

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



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

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

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

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





#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
You've just answered your own question.

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

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

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

It's kind of like when a moderately popular yootoober invites another moderately popular yootoober on their channel in order for both to get a chance to cross-pollenate their subscribers.
Topic's author
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
You've just answered your own question.

 How so?

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


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

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

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

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


#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
You've just answered your own question.
 How so?
John was presumably authorized (if not physically baptized) by "YHWH" (confirmed by Jesus' endorsement).
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stephen
I believe that they were deadly rivals. As always seemed the 'tradition' in those ancient times. 
Rivals cross-promote all the time.

Nothing gets more attention than a good flame-war.
Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
And  Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).
You've just answered your own question.
 How so?
John was presumably authorized (if not physically baptized) by "YHWH" (confirmed by Jesus' endorsement).


You/we have already addressed authority. 

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

#24
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Gods are made up.

Religious myths are largely made up.

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

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

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

Perhaps it is childish. But if he refuses to answer the question but expects others only to answer questions - and never produces the evidence. And refuses to publish his sources - then I am quite entitled to say he makes it up. 
#25
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is not asking about John's baptism - in the sense of who baptised John? If we are correct in assuming that the OT Levites baptized or annointed him (John) a priest in accordance with the OT Law - then it is a non-question and would make the discussion between Jesus and the pharisees nonsensical. The pharisees ought to have known how John was baptised and by what authority he did things? So they would have answered Jesus by saying - it was divine - or from heaven because the OT law came from God. They would not have any qualms in answering the question - so the discussion that led them to say nothing - because they were afraid of the crowds would make no sense. Interestingly they did not even consider his priesthood background - just his alleged status as a prophet.  They could have quickly just dismissed Jesus by saying - John was a Levite, his authority comes from God with his being annointed by the priests as witness of the same in accordance with his tribe. Hence - why I say this was not Jesus endorsing John's authority as a priest. And certainly not referring to his annointing. 

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

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

In fact the ordination of a Levitical priest was not simply water and was never called a baptism.  It contained oil as well according to the OT passages.  I link it with Jesus - because his  baptism is different to the other people baptised.  None of the others were called the Son of God - none of the others were witnessed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' ordination was significantly different to the OT Levitical ordinations in many ways. 
Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Perhaps it is childish. But if he refuses to answer the question but expects others only to answer questions - and never produces the evidence. And refuses to publish his sources - then I am quite entitled to say he makes it up. 



I didn't refuse anything.  I answered your question although it was of no significance and was irrelevant to the thread. You obviously missed it.. I said the source was YOU and I have shown you that it was you.  I have admitted that maybe  I should have chosen my words better because I was talking to YOU, that has a very poor attention span, and simply chooses to overlook anything biblically inconvenient. 


HERE IT IS  AGAIN!!!!!!!!!POST above.  #41





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who baptized John?

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

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

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


You just make it up. 

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

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

 So did I make up that biblical verse or not? 



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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

 
So yes, I think you are making it up.

WTF HAVE I MADE UP!



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


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

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

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


 



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





Just thought I'd  let you know. 

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

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

There are other modern biblical examples too.

#27
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I have no desire to get into a slanging match with you. 

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

I did not say it myself. I don't even believe I inferred it. I am not saying it is wrong either. I am just asking you to prove it. Or to show where you got it from.  

I do not know why you keep confusing John's own personal baptism of which there is no evidence verses what John did - he was the baptizer?  It seems from my point a view a rabbit hole to go looking for where John was baptized as opposed to what he was doing which is part of the text. 

Yes, I indicated Jesus was baptized by John and that I am of the view that this was his anointing as a priest. This was based on several factors. Firstly, Jesus never sinned according to the NT, hence John's baptism of him was not about washing away sin. Secondly, Jesus told John after John initially refused to baptize him, (why would he do that if he believe Jesus was the same as everyone else - a sinner?) and Jesus told him it needs to be done to fulfill righteousness. The word righteousness is a legal term not one about holiness. It refers to a law that had to be fulfilled. Thirdly, the only law that seems to fit with what was going on here was the OT one in relation to anointing of priests, because we had a Levite Priest, we had a water ceremony, and we had a candidate who was 30 years of age.  The problem however was Jesus was not Levite and John was not mixing his water with oil. And there was no official witness.  

John did decide to baptize Jesus. God the Father spoke as a witness. The Holy Spirit descended - upon Jesus, symbolic of the Oil of God.  And Jesus was ordained into the priestly Order of Melchizadek because he was of the line of David, not Levi.


Topic's author
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I have no desire to get into a slanging match with you. 
Then don't . If you have no answers then simply leave the thread. It's that fkn simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I said you made up the notion

 I didn't make anything up. "THE NOTION" was all your own. This thread  concerns questions that have arose from YOUR  OWN NOTION that YOU shared on this thread here>>>>

#29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves"

. I suggest you look up the word "notion". Here I'll do that for you too;

noun  notion

  1. 1.
    a conception of or belief about something.
    "children have different notions about the roles of their parents"

    Similar:
    idea ,belief, concept,conception,conviction, opinion, AND  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>view<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<!!!https://www.google.com/search?q=notion+meaning&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB907GB907&oq=notion&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433l2j0i131i433j0i433l2j0j5.7064j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8       

Now look at your own fkn comment on said thread; here it is AGAIN!!!! >>>> #29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves". 
  So away with your false accusation. You have also told us that John the Baptist was indeed himself baptised, haven't you?  But you cannot prove that yourself. And It is only ASSUMED by god that John was baptised, but I don't care who it was.


 


I am just asking you to prove it. Or to show where you got it from.

I have, See above, what's the matter with you? The only reason that this thread was created was because of "THE NOTION" that YOU had and shared!!  I simply agree with YOUR "notion". 


AND that it was you that suggested that it should be a requirment

Yes, I believe it should be. AND Yes, I agreed with YOUR NOTION. AND I  have given my reasons why I agree with YOUR NOTION, which is  something else that you failed to do.


I'll say it again if you wish..   It is reasonable to believe that a person that to calls others to have their sins washed away and be baptised should have FIRST have had their own sins washed away and have been baptised themselves.  Why you are making an issue out of this simple reasoning only you know?   Is it because I have shown you to be - to put it politely _ foolish AGAIN!?



  

I do not know why you keep confusing John's own personal baptism of which there is no evidence verses what John did - he was the baptizer? 

 I am not confusing anything. You have said that John was baptised. I can accept that. And depending on which way one was to read it, so does Jesus.>>>>>"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.   I don't care, from "whence it came" and  don't care who baptised him or when.  


It seems from my point a view a rabbit hole to go looking for where John was baptized as opposed to what he was doing which is part of the text. 

I see again that  I should have made myself more clear. I am sorry. Try this >>> I don't care, from "whence it came" and  I don't care who baptised him or when or WHERE.  

I am happy in the knowledge that you have made it clear  that it is your belief that John was baptised himself regardless of  by whom, or "whence it came from"  or when or where.
You do, after all tell us, HERE>>> Tradesecret  #29  that John spoke of his own baptism don't you? And John wouldn't speak of his   own baptism if he hadn't indeed been baptised, would he? 


Yes, I indicated Jesus was baptized by John and that I am of the view that this was his anointing as a priest.

And you said "king and prophet" and you also said that the evidence is in the bible and that evidence is " is very clear". But when asked numerous time to show this "very clear evidence", you simply have  ignored  the request to do so. Never mind eh.



John did decide to baptize Jesus. [..................................................................................] Melchizadek because he was of the line of David, not Levi.

 None of the above is relevant to this thread. Those points concerning Levi- David etc -   are points that being argued separately on another thread . They have nothing to do with this thread. Do not cross contaminate this thread.

 Let me whittle this down to one single question for you:

 Was John the Baptist baptised himself? YES or NO? 


#29
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen, 

Let's get this straight. Are you saying that you took a position that I said - and began to use it as an premise for a topic? 

I accept that it makes sense that someone who baptizes another ought to be baptized-  and within a church setting that is correct. Or at least ought to be correct. 

Nevertheless, the word baptism in the NT is quite unexpected from a word we would expect to equate the ordination of a Levite priest.  

John is the Baptizer. But is his baptism (what he does) always and in every way to be understood as congruent with the ordination of the Levite priests? 

I am not convinced that John was baptized as we understand baptism.  Yes, I have no issue particularly with him being ordained as a Levite priest, save and except we do not have any evidence for it whatsoever.  We can only assume it - because he was a Levite, and because he was baptizing others.  But I cannot take it any further without further information. 



Topic's author
#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


I accept that it makes sense that someone who baptizes another ought to be baptized-  and within a church setting that is correct. Or at least ought to be correct. 

 Yes that would be the "notion" that YOU spoke of here at, #27  that you say was "my notion". 
  I simply agree. Have you forgotten YOUR notion. Here it is , and  just as you wrote it>>>> #29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves".  And I believe that to be a more than reasonable assumption.

As I have said, it would be a diabolical liberty for someone to call for others to have their sins washed away and not have had their own sins cleansed first. I mean, what would be the advantage to have someone who's hands are covered in the filth of sin  attempting to cleans another's filth.  Do we wash our hands in muddy water? No we don't!!!


Nevertheless, the word baptism in the NT is quite unexpected from a word we would expect to equate the ordination of a Levite priest.

John is the Baptizer. But is his baptism (what he does) always and in every way to be understood as congruent with the ordination of the Levite priests?

I don't care that is all irrelevant to this thread.   And  from this point on I will edit out anything irrelevant  to this thread and respond only to what is relevant.
If or not Jesus is /was a Levite is being argued on this thread here >>>. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4858-josephs-two-dads?page=1 


I am not convinced that John was baptized as we understand baptism.

Why not?  

You tell us that John himself spoke of his own baptism , here;>>



I really don't see what you point is. 

I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves.  Yet, I also think that there is no specific power in baptism since it is a symbolic picture of a far more important baptism.  Yes, in the main, but with exceptions, baptism is to do with sin and even the remittance of sins.  Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming. In what way was his baptism deficient? It was washing on the outside -and it is the heart which is the problem. 

The most important baptism in the NT is at Pentecost.   This is the baptism that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is the paradigm, not John's. 

That above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you, isn't it.


as we understand baptism.

Which is how? 

Why do I feel another biblical re-write coming on.