A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
I am sure they did not, but since the Apostles understood Baptism to replace circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant, they would have no reason to withhold it from infants.

In fact, the arguement in the early church was not about whether the infants should be baptized but whether the 8 days should be observed as in the OT.

I respectfully disagree. The apostles understood no such thing.

Col. 2:11–12 says they did.

 

[Nicea325]

**Look I don’t have a problem. This is a debate do you understand that. What is the title of this thread. So don’t tell me to get over it buddy. I don’t care if you accept the Baptist position or not. **

You keep on pushing the same thing over and over and over. It has been explained in about 20 million different ways. But no! You are still asking the same question in different methods or ways. Well good! I am glad you acknowledge I do not care about the Baptist position.

**
YOU get over it because I don’t agree with the Catholic position.**

I have nothing to get over. And why? Because we baptize adults all the time who are ready to receive and follow Jesus.And guess what? Others who have never been baptized from ages 7 and up. And we also baptize infants because parents want their children to be part of the Body of Christ…how horrible eh-because they cannot ‘choose’ Jesus yet? We have all of the pizza and you want to keep it limited to one slice. Then grab your slice and enjoy it.

** I can tell by your posts the you are anti-Protestant. I feel sorry for you. **

No need to feel sorry for me. No, I am against those who come here (Protestants in particular and many Baptists who are well known to have anti-Catholic sentiments) expecting us Catholics to constantly prove our faith and everything else from the Bible. The irony is that not one Protestant church can prove Christ even gave their human founder the authority to create their own church. Go figure?

**See even though I disagree with some of the teachings of the CC I can tell you for sure that I am not anti-Catholic. You have a smart A attitued towards those who disagree with you. Love your neighbor buddy because I love you. **

Then fine! As I said a few posts back, you disagree so why continue to ask for scriptural proof? You blow it off as not proving an iota,so why continue with this issue?

And I never said you were anti-Catholic. I love you too but I have learned it gets old to fight over things we will never see eye-to-eye. We have our beliefs and you have yours.

Are we cool?

 

[rev_kevin]

**Look I don’t have a problem. This is a debate do you understand that. What is the title of this thread. So don’t tell me to get over it buddy. I don’t care if you accept the Baptist position or not. **

You keep on pushing the same thing over and over and over. It has been explained in about 20 million different ways. But no! You are still asking the same question in different methods or ways. Well good! I am glad you acknowledge I do not care about the Baptist position.

**
YOU get over it because I don’t agree with the Catholic position.**

I have nothing to get over. And why? Because we baptize adults all the time who are ready to receive and follow Jesus.And guess what? Others who have never been baptized from ages 7 and up. And we also baptize infants because parents want their children to be part of the Body of Christ…how horrible eh-because they cannot ‘choose’ Jesus yet? We have all of the pizza and you want to keep it limited to one slice. Then grab your slice and enjoy it.

** I can tell by your posts the you are anti-Protestant. I feel sorry for you. **

No need to feel sorry for me. No, I am against those who come here (Protestants in particular and many Baptists who are well known to have anti-Catholic sentiments) expecting us Catholics to constantly prove our faith and everything else from the Bible. The irony is that not one Protestant church can prove Christ even gave their human founder the authority to create their own church. Go figure?

**See even though I disagree with some of the teachings of the CC I can tell you for sure that I am not anti-Catholic. You have a smart A attitued towards those who disagree with you. Love your neighbor buddy because I love you. **

Then fine! As I said a few posts back, you disagree so why continue to ask for scriptural proof? You blow it off as not proving an iota,so why continue with this issue?

And I never said you were anti-Catholic. I love you too but I have learned it gets old to fight over things we will never see eye-to-eye. We have our beliefs and you have yours.

Are we cool?

We cool. But I’m not the only one here who had be going back and forth on this issue.

 

[Nicea325]

We cool. But I’m not the only one here who had be going back and forth on this issue.

I understand. Furthermore, I am not only saying you alone are guilty of going back and forth. ALL of us are guilty of it…

 

[guanophore]

The church is people; people make mistakes. Jesus the leader don’t lead incorrectly; us, His followers, don’t always follow correctly.

Indeed. This is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. Only God can lead the Church into ALL TRUTH.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Was it because of our sin nature we were far off?)

Not the sin nature, per se. Concupiscence, or the tendency toward sin is one of the effects of the Fall. We are far off from God from the moment we are conceived because we are all born in Adam. Not until we are born again into Christ, the 2nd Adam, are we brought near to Him.

**As far as this comment refers to me, WRONG.  I was taught the water refers to the Word of God.  As I studied, I came to understand, in context, it's most likely speaking of physical birth**.

The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It cannot be properly understood outside of it’s context.

In the quote I posted above, it is clear that Jesus washed the Church in WATER AND WORD. This is a reference to baptism and preaching/teaching.

 **If correct, good points**.  **However, water in the Bible is for the Holy Spirit, the Word of God and baptism.  How do you know it's about baptism and not the Word of God?**

This is a good question. However, we do not have an “either/or” metnality about it. We know that the Apostles NEVER separated the water from the HS in baptism.

 BTW, **I usually try to prefice my understandings as my opinions and as usually I understand I could be wrong.  That's very different from you who believes the CC could never be wrong.**

It is.

I recognize that I as an individual may be in error, just as Peter as an individual was in error with his hypocritical actions. However, the Teachings of the Church cannot be wrong because it comes from Christ. By the power of his HS He has led the Church into all truth.

I’m not looking for a church that can’t be wrong but for a church that’s loving, caring and will serve others all with the attempt to bring the lost to Jesus and build up the faith of the brothren.

What good is a lovey dovey emotional experience, if you are separated from the Truth?

**Wrong again**.  **I associate with NO ONE that is anti-catholic.**

I did not mean to imply that you did. I am simply noting that the heresy you embraced in this matter is about 500 years old.

Why was Israel under reproach? Disobediance.

Disobedience to what? How did Joshua correct the problem? The answer to this will give you an idea of why the shadow and figure of the OT is so important.

**I already responded, if I remember correctly.  I know I've responded to the equating of circumcism and baptism more than once.  If you can't find where, post the verses you want me to comment on and I'll do it again when I see them**.

Ok. It is quite possible I missed it. What stuck in my head was what I thought you said about the two not being related. Did I misunderstand?

I also look forward to your explanation of how a Body can live when the Head has been separated. Who said anything about the Head and the Body being separated?

I thought I read where you said that Jesus was not completely identified with His Body.

The Bible doesn’t speak of the ‘C’ church because it wasn’t around when the letters of the NT were written.

. The same word was used until 1054. Thanks for your opinion.

When you get ready to explore the history of your faith, you will find that this word is not only used in the book of Acts to refer to the One Church founded by Christ, but it is used by the early Fathers for 300 years before that Bible you are using to thump us with was created.

 **Wrong again and misrepresenting what I said.**  **I suppose you have to think that's what I'm meaning or else you'd have to admit I'm making good points**.

I don’t know how else to understand your position. If there was a complete apostasy,as the Mormon’s believe, then Jesus abandoned His Church right after the book of Revelation was written at the turn of the first century.

 

[guanophore]

Well you don’t have a clue why I left the CC. You are just assuming the reasons you gave are correct but you are wrong I have a good grasp of the CC teachings I don’t agree with some of them. Just because I don’t agree with them don’t mean I don’t know them. I am far from Spiritual laziness and I have more faith then you could never imagine. The CC teaches that Mary was ever virgin, that is a bunch of malarki. They teach that they are the true church founded by Jesus himself. I disagree. You claim that Jesus did not have siblings. I believe he did. And so on. I won’t insult you because I’m a better man than that. If you feel the need to then go ahead and show everyone what kind of Catholic the CC put out.

I have always had the sense that you are very fervent in your faith and your posts represent a striving for Christlike character. However, I do agree with Elvis on the point that you were very poorly catechized. If this were not the case, you would not reject these doctrines.

 

[rev_kevin]

I have always had the sense that you are very fervent in your faith and your posts represent a striving for Christlike character. However, I do agree with Elvis on the point that you were very poorly catechized. If this were not the case, you would not reject these doctrines.

Thank you but it has nothing to do with being poorly catechized. That has no bearing on my decision. Like I have said, I don’t beleive in everything the CC teaches.

 

[Dokimas]

I think all human minds need washed, and the sooner it gets started, the better! I believe that many fervent families among our separated brethren strive to raise their children in the faith. Many of them do a better job than Catholics do!​

I agree. I’ve often thought the brain washing is miss named. I want my brain to be washed from the filth that so easily finds a home in it.

According to what the Apostles believed and taught, there is no need to “chase” anyone away. I never said the apostles taught that. I did say that Jesus would not have the disciple chace any children away and by my logic, that means an unbaptized child is always welcome to Jesus. This I’m correct, there is no need to baptize children. Everyone born into this world is born into it separated from God through Adam’s sin. But the Grace of God extends to the helpless. This is why Jesus said “He who doesn not believe is condemned already”. You appear to be reading into what Jesus said something a meaning that is not correct. We are not in a state of reconciliation with God, but of enmity. All have sinned “in Adam”. That could bring us to another discussion: about the precious mother of Jesus. The effect of original sin is that we are no longer in right standing with God as a human race.

No, not at all! Baptism is the manner in which we are cleansed by the blood. I disagree with your understanding. In baptism, we are buried with Him in His death, united to Him in resurrection. A symbol of identification but not of actual cleasning which only was done by Jesus on the Cross as we trust in His substitutionary death. In it, we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. No, our faith in Jesus is the circumcism not made with hands, IMO. We are sealed with the promised HS. Perhaps this is the baptism mentioned by Peter. All our sins are washed way, as we call upon HIs name. ** By the Blood of the Lamb, not by baptism, IMO.**

We are telling you how your position appears from our perspective. I really do want to know how you dispense with the scripture that equates baptism with circumcision.

I have read the reconstruction of Jn. 3 - the fantasy that the water Jesus speaks of there is physical birth. That’s kind of unkind. **I try not to be unkind when I show how your beleifs may not line up with the Bible. If I’m unkind, I’m sorry. It’s not correct to be unkind about anothers belief. BTW, pointing out misuderstanding nicely is not being unkind. **But I have not yet been exposed to how the other scripture is reconstructed. There must be a way to dispense with this!

All those who are washed with His water Seems its the Word of God that washes, not baptism are members of His Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;
Col 2:14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
Col 2:15 having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

For those who have received the faith of the Apostles, this is understood to mean that in baptism we are joined with Christ in His death. Baptism is how we are separated from the bond of death that was against us. The merits of His once for all sacrifice are made present in our hearts.

Col 2:
4 ¶ Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words.
5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,
7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made **without **hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.​

Notice Paul says circumcism HAPPENED to these gentile Christians in Colosse, not circumcision of the flesh but circumcism of the heart. So, if baptism replace circumcism, why did Paul teach both circumcism and baptism happen to the Colosse?​

Note it is Christ that does this kind of circumcism.​

Therefore, this is not about baptism replacing circumcism, IMO.

 

[guanophore]

Many non-catholic Christian churches are growing wonderfully in Christ Jesus, both in numbers because of new believers and in spirituality.

Truly the HS uses these ecclesial communities to draw people to Himself.​

 Saying Mary had to be a perpetual virgin is more limiting to God, IMO, as I read the reasons why she had to be.  Looking at the Bible, it appears there are good reasons why she wasn't - and if she wasn't a perpetual virgin doesn't take away from that fact she was a wonderful Christian woman who loved God with her whole heart.

Actually, it was God who chose to empty (limit) Himself when He poured Himself out, and took upon Himself the form of a man. All that was human about Him came from Mary, the pure vessel who had been prepared before the foundation of the world to serve as the Ark of the New Covenant.

Her whole life was consecrated to Him. She did not distract herself from His service by raising a family, other than those who follow His commandments.​

Jesus is God in Human form. Is that a personal opinion of mine?

Jesus being born of the virgin Mary. Is that a personal opinion of mine?

Jesus being raised from the dead. Is that a personal opinion of mine?

God is Triune. Is that a personal opinion of mine?

God purchased for us (His sheep) with His own Blood. Is that a personal opinion of mine?

If it is, then it is consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly by the HS in the Catholic Church.

All that is True in the communities of our separated brethren has come from the Catholic Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Col. 2:11–12 says they did.

Please read my post to Guanophore in a post just before this one.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe because i’m not sure you understand what the Blood of Christ does for us. I’m referring to the actual act of His shed Blood not the ritual form that is to represent the Blood of Jesus.

It is the shedding of His Blood on the cross that is the only thing that gives any power to the ritual form at all. But we know that His shed Blood does not save all, don’t we? It is only to those who receive Him that it will give benefit unto eternal life. His Blood is efficiacious for ALL sins. Yet the sins of some will not be expiated, because they do not come to Him, that they may be saved.

In baptism, our sins are washed away, because we call upon His name. By faith we are united with Him in His death. His blood cleanses us from all sin. That is why it is called the bath of regeneration!

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

Indeed. This is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. Only God can lead the Church into ALL TRUTH. Disagree. They don’t necessarily follow.

Not the sin nature, per se. Concupiscence, or the tendency toward sin is one of the effects of the Fall. We are far off from God from the moment we are conceived because we are all born in Adam. Not until we are born again into Christ, the 2nd Adam, are we brought near to Him. So you are speaking of the sin nature.

The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. Disagree with your understanding of the universal church. ** It cannot be properly understood outside of it’s context. Could that be this is why you don’t properly understand**?

In the quote I posted above, it is clear that Jesus washed the Church in WATER AND WORD. This is a reference to baptism and preaching/teaching. Thanks for sharing your understanding.

This is a good question. However, we do not have an “either/or” metnality about it. We know that the Apostles NEVER separated the water from the HS in baptism.

It is. Thanks for your opinion.

I recognize that I as an individual may be in error, just as Peter as an individual was in error with his hypocritical actions. However, the Teachings of the Church cannot be wrong because it comes from Christ. Though people that are prone to misunderstanding. By the power of his HS He has led the Church into all truth.

What good is a lovey dovey emotional experience, if you are separated from the Truth? **Are you purposely misunderstanding what I said or is it by mistake? **

I did not mean to imply that you did. I am simply noting that the heresy you embraced in this matter is about 500 years old. Have you notice I believe you to hold to wrong understanding AND I’ve never said you hold to heretical teachings? ** That would be unfair of me. Didn’t Jesus say something about doing unto others …?**

Disobedience to what? How did Joshua correct the problem? The answer to this will give you an idea of why the shadow and figure of the OT is so important. If you bring forward that discussion into another post, I’ll try to understand your point.

Ok. It is quite possible I missed it. What stuck in my head was what I thought you said about the two not being related. Did I misunderstand? If you’re speaking of circumcism and baptism, I’m sure you correctly understand my position.

I thought I read where you said that Jesus was not completely identified with His Body. What I said, if we’re remembering the same conversation, was that Jesus and the Church are the same.

When you get ready to explore the history of your faith, you will find that this word is not only used in the book of Acts to refer to the One Church founded by Christ, but it is used by the early Fathers for 300 years before that Bible you are using to thump us with was created. Again, thank you for your understanding.

I don’t know how else to understand your position. If there was a complete apostasy,as the Mormon’s believe, then Jesus abandoned His Church right after the book of Revelation was written at the turn of the first century. Have I said the CC is in apostacy? Have I said Jesus has abandoned His church? I’d apreciate it if you’d bring the whole conversation forward in a post so we can, together, look at the comments in context of each other.

 

[Dokimas]

If it is, then it is consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly by the HS in the Catholic Church.

All that is True in the communities of our separated brethren has come from the Catholic Church.

Thank you for your understanding. I repectfully disagree with your understanding of the church/CC.

 

[Masters_Servant]

So now your saying the holy spirit led the early church in error on baptizing infants?
What makes you more of an authority than the holy spirit on guiding Christ church in TOTAL truth rev? I will ask you again… What makes you right and the early church father wrong on infant baptism?
Please just a simple answer so we can all understand this…

Matthew

The premise is an error; the HS leads individuals that make up God’s elect, which is the church and He does not mislead His own; the real question is who is the church? Romans 8:19 “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.” Who are the “Sons of God”? Christians, the justified, the elect, the chosen and predestined AKA “Sons of God”

Individuals: And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and ***the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. ***What is the church; the collective body of Christians, who are Christians - the elect, who are the elect? You do not know unless you are actually one of them according to God.

Paul puts it all into perspective in Romans 8: For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but *you have received a spirit of adoption as sons *by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Notice that the HS that gives the testimony neglects that “so called” association with water; what about John the Baptist in reference to himself verses Jesus in regards to baptism?

Matthews 3:11-12 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” the true baptism is the receiving of the HS; water has NOTHING to do with salvation unless of course God saves the OT saints differently than the NT saints, which would in effect mean that Christ died for the NT saints, but not for the OT saints or God added some water to the NT saints, which would mean He changes, which means He is unreliable since He claimed He does not change.

Again, nothing wrong with Baptizing an infant with water; they get wet , then they dry, but since they are unaware of the true purpose of water baptism. it means they are wet.

 

[guanophore]

Tell elvisman that he is the one who asked.

Did he ask? I thought he just asserted?

Just because I don’t agree with them don’t mean I don’t know them. I am far from Spiritual laziness and I have more faith then you could never imagine.

I dont’ think a failure to study history necessarily equates to spiritual laziness. I wish more Catholics demonstrated the fervency of our spiritually on fire separated brethren. You stand in the tradition of Apollos.

The CC teaches that Mary was ever virgin, that is a bunch of malarki.

It is painful to read things like this.

It is not malarki, rev kev. It is an historical fact.

We are far from self-centered.

I don’t think being ignorant of history makes you self centered either. Of course, one could be both…

???
rev kevin;6505708:

 You claim that Jesus did not have siblings. I believe he did.

How do you dispense with the historical record, which says the opposite?

Its in the Bible that he had brothers and sisters and it don’t mean cousins or fellow Christians.

True,they were near kin. They were children of what the gospel calls “the other Mary” who is described as the “sister” of the mother of our Lord. It has always seemed unlikely to me that two sisters of the same parents would both be called Mary, but Clopas (Alphaeus) could have been Mary’s brother, or Joseph’s brother. any way you look at it, they were near kin. Any kin in a Jewish clan who were too close for marriage were considered brother and sister. There was no Hebrew word for cousin. All we know for sure is that Jesus was the only child of His mother.

I have not said anything about the CC, like you have by calling the prostants ignorant or prostant ignorance. I have not said that about the CC, but you seem to think its the way a Catholic should act.

I think saying what the Church holds as sacred teaching is "malarki’ falls in teh same category. I agree, though, it is not how any Christians should act. We do not heal the wounds of the body by disrespecting one another.

 

[Dokimas]

The premise is an error; the HS leads individuals that make up God’s elect, which is the church and He does not mislead His own; the real question is who is the church? Romans 8:19 “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.” Who are the “Sons of God”? Christians, the justified, the elect, the chosen and predestined AKA “Sons of God”

Individuals: And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and ***the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. ***What is the church; the collective body of Christians, who are Christians - the elect, who are the elect? You do not know unless you are actually one of them according to God.

Paul puts it all into perspective in Romans 8: For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but *you have received a spirit of adoption as sons *by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Notice that the HS that gives the testimony neglects that “so called” association with water; what about John the Baptist in reference to himself verses Jesus in regards to baptism?

Matthews 3:11-12 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” the true baptism is the receiving of the HS; water has NOTHING to do with salvation unless of course God saves the OT saints differently than the NT saints, which would in effect mean that Christ died for the NT saints, but not for the OT saints or God added some water to the NT saints, which would mean He changes, which means He is unreliable since He claimed He does not change.

Again, nothing wrong with Baptizing an infant with water; they get wet , then they dry, but since they are unaware of the true purpose of water baptism. it means they are wet.

Interesting and worth pondering.

 

[guanophore]

Be honest. You think I’m wrong if I understand something differently that you and your church. That makes you right (at least in your eyes) and me wrong.

It is quite above individual proclivities. You see, no individual can claim “right” doctrine apart from the Apsotolic Teaching that has been preserved infallibly in the Church by the HS. When individual Catholics embrace the Apostolic Teaching, then we can have the assurance that we are “right”. But it has nothing to do with us as individuals, except that we have been willing to conform ourselves to the Deposit of Faith.

All who fail to do that, including individual catholics, have departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

• Anyone, including myself, is wrong about infant baptism if what we believe is contrary to God’s intent

Yes. That includes Catholics. The Truth is not a matter of individual opinon, but of what has been revealed by God.

• and what He has revealed to us about this issue in the Bible. I could very possibly be wrong. Could you?

Do you really believe that God would reveal something to you individually 2000 years after the fact that is opposite of what He told His Apostles?

We can all, as individuals, be wrong. That is why it is so important to cling to the teachings just as they have been handed down to us. There are as many individual interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

As for Mary having other children - it’'s unbiblical. It simply doesn’t say that ANYWHERE in Scripture.

PLEASE show me where it says that she was the mother of anybody else other than Jesus and I will leave the Catholic Church today - I PROMISE.

PS - This DOES have to do with the topic of the thread, lest anybody think I’\m veering off the topic.

I just can’t wait to see that! I think you have been sucked into derailing!

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 13:55-56 “He’s just a carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, All his sisters live right here among us. What makes him so great?”
Also in Mark 6:3 “He’s just the carpenters son, the son of Mary and brother James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.”

I know you won’t accept this.

We accept it for what it is, the calumny of those without faith in Christ.

We also know that these children named are the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas. They are near kindred of Christ. They likely all grew up together as siblings in the town of Nazareth. what does it have to do with baptism?