Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Was Baptized for His Sins

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: 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.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5066
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Tommy

 

 

Good to hear from you. Very nice points you make here. . I have asked my mum this question in the past and she claimed his physical body was being purified. I don't buy this. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1377
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re::So very pleased to hear from you

Re::So very pleased to hear from you

TGBaker wrote:

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor.

 As far as I know, feel free to correct me , Baptism is rooted in the ceremonial / ritual cleansing of a Mikvahמִקְוֶה , Which the jews were constantly doing almost  daily. With these origins, that highlights what a Petulant and stinging remark  Luke 11:44 was:  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are unaware" 

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: As far

danatemporary wrote:

 As far as I know, feel free to correct me , Baptism is rooted in the ceremonial / ritual cleansing of a Mikvahמִקְוֶה , Which the jews were constantly doing almost  daily. With these origins, that highlights what a Petulant and stinging remark  Luke 11:44 was:  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are unaware"

You're mostly correct, except that all sorts of things are taken to a mikvah.  After Mom passed away, I'd go over to Dad's house, kasher ("make kosher" ) his kitchen, then set about being a good Jewish daughter (Dad was Jewish by birth -- his Mom's parents were German Jews who fled persecution in the 1860's and 1880's -- I forget which parent of Grandmom escaped when).

Dad had a large pond in his back yard and I rang up an Orthodox Rabbi to find out if this pond was a kosher mikvah. Sure enough it was.  So, liberal application of a blow torch (some things are kashered by fire, others by water -- it just depends on the object) and dunking things in the pond and the kitchen is kosher.

But here's the deal -- so long as nothing happens to change the status from "ritually pure" to "ritually impure", no need to deal with a mikvah.  Keep the meat off the dairy plates, and the dairy off the meat plates, and keep the Christians away from everything -- no dunking stuff in ponds or getting out the blow torch.

Which means (you knew this was going somewhere ... ) Jesus had to have been "ritually impure" for him to have paid a visit to the Yarden River and his cousin John.

(As a bizarre aside, Muslims aren't a problem -- no risk of polytheism from my cousins the Arabs ...)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Good

Atheistextremist wrote:
Good to hear from you. Very nice points you make here. . I have asked my mum this question in the past and she claimed his physical body was being purified. I don't buy this.

There is no other body.  Jews don't become impure for =thinking= stuff.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:When one looks

TGBaker wrote:
When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

This is a very common problem with Christian texts.  In some cases the pronouns and their referrents are changed, in others words are changed from one to another, based on a lack of understanding of how Hebrew works.

For example, if you look at the Hebrew for Psalm 22:16,

Psa 22:16   For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

 

it doesn't follow the Semetic practice of using two similar phrases -- the first phrase is "dogs have compassed me", and the second phrase is "they pierced my hands and my feet".  But in the Hebrew, "they pierced" is "כָּאֲרִי", which is makes better sense as "like a lion", where "lion" is "אֲרִי" and the first letter (right to left) is the prefix for "like".

The better translation is "For dogs have compassed (surrounded) me, the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me.  They are like a lion at my hands and feet."  The second sentence (phrase) elaborates on / expands the first.

 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13241
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hey TG good to hear from

Hey TG good to hear from you. Hope you are holding up well as can be considering.

You are also a fine example of going through illness without resorting to an invisible friend as a crutch. I have nothing to say about the OP because we are already on the same page.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
Hay Gang READ>

 

 

 

 

                             Read the date on the post ITS FROM June 10 of last year.   This post came up because of an ad troll reviveing it. I haven't heard anything from TGBaker since August. All I can  say TODAY Jan 12/2012 is that he is not in the hospital.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5066
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crumbs

 

 

A digital resurrection. Tommy would be be pleased...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

 

                             Read the date on the post ITS FROM June 10 of last year.   This post came up because of an ad troll reviveing it. I haven't heard anything from TGBaker since August. All I can  say TODAY Jan 12/2012 is that he is not in the hospital.

I fear the worst, he would have at least dropped a line Sad.  He was a very intelligent and well read debater.  He will be missed.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I fear the

Ktulu wrote:
I fear the worst, he would have at least dropped a line Sad.  He was a very intelligent and well read debater.  He will be missed.

Baruch dyan emet.

Does anyone know how to get in contact with him?  I'd fear something else -- he indicated that he was ill and that his family had had other losses, which could put him in a situation where he needs people who can give him a hand and doesn't have anyone.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Ktulu

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
I fear the worst, he would have at least dropped a line Sad.  He was a very intelligent and well read debater.  He will be missed.

Baruch dyan emet.

Does anyone know how to get in contact with him?  I'd fear something else -- he indicated that he was ill and that his family had had other losses, which could put him in a situation where he needs people who can give him a hand and doesn't have anyone.

I wish I knew how, I would gladly help if it's within my ability to do so.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:FurryCatHerder

Ktulu wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
I fear the worst, he would have at least dropped a line Sad.  He was a very intelligent and well read debater.  He will be missed.

Baruch dyan emet.

Does anyone know how to get in contact with him?  I'd fear something else -- he indicated that he was ill and that his family had had other losses, which could put him in a situation where he needs people who can give him a hand and doesn't have anyone.

I wish I knew how, I would gladly help if it's within my ability to do so.

I found a message on debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com that he passed away on November, 25th apparently from acute transplant rejection after having a bone marrow transplant.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
Regretable.

                                             I feared the worst since I couldn't reach him at the two numbers I had for him. But no one at the numbers would admit that he had departed. I am an atheist but it becomes no easier to loose a friend under any circumstances, I even checked obituary listings on the internet for the Atlanta area; I did not check information sources beyond that,  I think mostly because I did not want to hear of his passing. Thomas G. Baker was  a highly informed and erudite writer on atheisim, he will be greatly missed by me and so meny others,  the world is a lesser place without him.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

I wasn't expecting him to be dead.  That's too bad -- he looked like a good man.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
               

                           

 

                              He passed away ?  Aw shit! Nooooo!!!  He was such a likable guy.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5066
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If this is true

 

 

It's very sad news. Tommy Baker was one of the best of us. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 707
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
He was showing the people

TGBaker wrote:

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: 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.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

he was one of them and not above them. So he submitted to what they had to submit to. He was a regular common Joe, so to speak.

The only possible thing the world could need saving from are those running it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Old Seer wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: 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.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

he was one of them and not above them. So he submitted to what they had to submit to. He was a regular common Joe, so to speak.

When did he say that? If he did not say it how do you know? I am not asking why you believe but only how you know.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:TGBaker

Old Seer wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I would like to present an atheistic bible study, an observation or interpretation, I believe explains the re-working of the original story of Jesus and John the Baptist by the authors of Matthew and Luke. This is with the understanding that Matthew and Luke use Mark in their compositions. In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

This answers the problem of why a sinless person would need baptism as in Mark and also makes John subservient to Jesus. This makes obvious the church is dealing with the fact that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist and does not begin his ministry until John is arrested. The author of the Gospel of John will have Jesus baptizing and ministering at the same time as the Baptist and does not have Jesus baptized by John.

In Mark Jesus comes up out of the water and the Holy Spirit comes into ( again eis) him. Matthew changes this to the spirit descends upon ( epi) him. The idea of the spirit after baptism coming into a person is consistent with the idea in Acts 2:38: 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.

In Mark Jesus alone hears god saying that he is well pleased. In Matthew god addresses his pleasure to the crowds. Luke maintains Mark's terminology about baptism, changes the adoptionistic reception of the Spirit into Jesus to a confirmation like Matthew to the spirit as dove comes down upon (epi) him. The change of the preposition by Matthew and Luke are intentional because of the theological implications and the addition of the infancy narratives wherein Jesus has the spirit from birth! Luke quotes mark and maintains gods announcement of pleasure to Jesus.

When one looks at the quoted OT verses in Mark 1:2f they are combined and perhaps reflect a pre-exiting proof text designed from Isaiah and Malachi not just Isaiah as stated. The pronouns are changed so that the verses can apply to the idea of the Baptist as precursor. Instead of "Behold I send my messenger before your face the original in Malachi 3:1 reads "I will send my messenger before me ( i.e.; God)." The change is from god talking to his prophet about his own coming to god talking to Christ about sending the Baptist before him. The messenger in Malachi was originally the Messiah and not the Baptist. The change is from god to messiah or Jesus in doing so and an example of a forged prophecy. Thus the preparing of the way of the Lord (Yahweh) shifts to a Messianic interpretation and the make straight his paths is substituted for the paths of our God.

he was one of them and not above them. So he submitted to what they had to submit to. He was a regular common Joe, so to speak.

A common Joe who just so happened to know he was God?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jcgadfly wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
he was one of them and not above them. So he submitted to what they had to submit to. He was a regular common Joe, so to speak.

A common Joe who just so happened to know he was God?

Good point. A liar by means of concealment. In court it is called perjury.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Professor
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2012-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Why Jesus Baptism?
 

If you want to study Christ and the Bible, you should get, among other books, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY by Geerhardus Vos, who taught at Princeton Seminary in the 1920's. His son Johannes Geerhardus Vos, was a missionary to China and was in semi-retired status when he taught me at Geneva College. Of course, if Jesus is Who the Bible says that He is, we need to repent of our sins and bow before Him. Have you done this? Dr. Vos writes of the Bible as "progressive revelation." Jesus did not sin, but He, out of love of the people for whom He laid down His life (to secure atonement for their sins) wanted to be identified with them. Hence, Christ submitted to the ceremonial washing of John the Baptizer, even though John correctly points out in the Scripture that Jesus did not need to be baptized. Jesus submitted to having human parents. Jesus submitted to sun, rain, thorns, and splinters in Joseph's carpenter shop. He submitted to the proud Pharisees and proud Romans as supervisors of His national life. When His public ministry began, Christ criticized the Pharisees, for it was His duty, representing God, Who He is, to do so. The most marvelous thing of all is that Jesus submitted to death, and not any death, but the death of a criminal by torture in crucifixion. Isn't it amazing that the infinite, eternal God would come to earth and be crucified as a man? Do you have trouble with that? So did the apostle Paul. But then God opened Paul's spiritual eyes, and Paul wrote , "God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of Christ..... (Gal. 6:14)."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Professor wrote:  If you

Professor wrote:

 

If you want to study Christ and the Bible, you should get, among other books, BIBLICAL THEOLOGY by Geerhardus Vos, who taught at Princeton Seminary in the 1920's. His son Johannes Geerhardus Vos, was a missionary to China and was in semi-retired status when he taught me at Geneva College. Of course, if Jesus is Who the Bible says that He is, we need to repent of our sins and bow before Him. Have you done this? Dr. Vos writes of the Bible as "progressive revelation." Jesus did not sin, but He, out of love of the people for whom He laid down His life (to secure atonement for their sins) wanted to be identified with them. Hence, Christ submitted to the ceremonial washing of John the Baptizer, even though John correctly points out in the Scripture that Jesus did not need to be baptized. Jesus submitted to having human parents. Jesus submitted to sun, rain, thorns, and splinters in Joseph's carpenter shop. He submitted to the proud Pharisees and proud Romans as supervisors of His national life. When His public ministry began, Christ criticized the Pharisees, for it was His duty, representing God, Who He is, to do so. The most marvelous thing of all is that Jesus submitted to death, and not any death, but the death of a criminal by torture in crucifixion. Isn't it amazing that the infinite, eternal God would come to earth and be crucified as a man? Do you have trouble with that? So did the apostle Paul. But then God opened Paul's spiritual eyes, and Paul wrote , "God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of Christ..... (Gal. 6:14)."

I always found it interesting that in order to study Christ and the Bible you actually need to study something OTHER than christ and the Bible.  Prof, are you owning up to your holy book's shortcomings?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin