Why did Jesus have to be baptized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carmelite1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...
You said that Jesus “was baptized so that he could make baptism a sacrament.”

When I challenged that assertion – that Jesus needed to be baptized by John in order that He might be capable of making baptism a sacrament, you responded, “I was not intending to say that he had to do that.”

So, I replied, “ok, then… so Jesus didn’t need to be baptized in order to make baptism a sacrament”, which is what you originally claimed.

🤷‍♂️
neophyte said:
And you know that how?
Click to expand...
Because this ritual bath is not prescribed by the Mosaic law nor taught by the Pharisees. If you have any info to the contrary, now would be a good time to present it. 😉
 
I’m saying that Jesus was baptized so as to make it a sacrament, though he did not need to do that to make it a sacrament. That is the explanation I’ve heard.
 
The Didache Bible has a note that says “the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist signifies his complete submission to his Father’s will.”

I think the reason for Jesus’ baptism was to show that everything the Son does is perfectly aligned to the Father’s will, and thus the Father and Son function as One being.
 
neophyte said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...
If you think that it is in the Mosaic law, I invite you to read the OT and find it. If you think that it is a bath that was taught by the Pharisees, then I invite you to show a source that makes that claim.

Otherwise, since it was you who made this assertion, it’s only reasonable that we ask you, “how do you know that?”, not the other way around. 😉
 
And another note from the Didache NABRE Bible reads:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
ChristMyLife said:
The Didache Bible has a note that says “the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist signifies his complete submission to his Father’s will.”

I think the reason for Jesus’ baptism was to show that everything the Son does is perfectly aligned to the Father’s will, and thus the Father and Son function as One being.
Click to expand...
Do we have knowledge of who all saw the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus like a dove and who heard the confirmation of the Heavenly Father that Jesus was His beloved Son? If all the crowd including the Pharisees saw and heard this I can’t help but wonder why they would not believe it. Or was this just a John and Jesus moment?
 
Gorgias said:
If you think that it is in the Mosaic law, I invite you to read the OT and find it.
Click to expand...
I take it you’ve never read Leviticus. There are many circumstances in the Law that require a mikveh, and there’s no doubt that Jesus would have encountered them.
Gorgias said:
Otherwise, since it was you who made this assertion, it’s only reasonable that we ask you , “how do you know that?”, not the other way around. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m not the one claiming that Jesus was exempt from observing the Mosaic Law, or that John couldn’t have been giving mikvehs in observance of it.
 
Last edited:
Wannano said:
Or was this just a John and Jesus moment?
Click to expand...
The way it’s worded in the synoptic Gospels, especially Mark, makes it seem as if it was Jesus himself and John alone who heard the Father and saw the Spirit… Which makes sense if you think about it.

Jesus is the Son, the Father confirms by voice, and the Spirit descends as a dove. John witnesses this and bears witness to the Son, thus also giving witness to the Trinity.
 
Oh and another thing which lends credence to the idea that it was Jesus and John alone at the baptism… All the traditional iconography of the baptism of Christ shows Jesus and John alone with 4 angels watching nearby.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So given the witness of the synoptic Gospels and the Church’s iconography, I feel confident saying the baptism of Christ was carried out in the presence of God and his angels, and Christ and John were the only humans present.
 
Gorgias said:
has real spiritual effects.
Click to expand...
What does this really mean.
If something is spiritual doesnt that mean its effects cannot be objectively demonstrated in this life.

The above phrase seems internally contradictory to me.

Wicca spells or crystals, in this sense, would also have real spiritual effects…NOT 😀.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
I take it you’ve never read Leviticus.
Click to expand...
Often, thank you very much.
There are many circumstances in the Law that require a mikveh, and there’s no doubt that Jesus would have encountered them.
Click to expand...
And you can demonstrate, with a quotation, please, that this is what John was doing? I mean, John himself asked the people, “why did you come here?” If it were to fulfill a provision of the Mosaic law, then they would have said so… no? 😉
 
Exactly, you cannot demonstrate objectively that alleged spiritual effects are true or false by means of perceptible real world results. Just alleged words of an alleged unproven authority.
 
Sophie111 said:
you cannot demonstrate objectively that alleged spiritual effects are true or false by means of perceptible real world results.
Click to expand...
So, “real” only means “physical world”? That’s your claim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top