jlb32168 wrote:

What are you talking about, Daldianus?  Going to mikvahs was a regular occurrence.  One wasn’t baptized once and that was enough for the rest of his life.  One was baptized every time he went felt the need to cleanse himself of what he felt was ritual uncleanliness.  Did you even bother learning what a mikvah's purpose was?  Yeah, that's a rhetorical question.  Either you did – and simply didn't care because it would overthrow some of your points, or you didn't since you simply can't be encumbered with facts that might invalidate your beliefs.

You've still not pointed out why the Baptist would think that he needed to be baptized by Jesus if he thought that Jesus was only baptizing by water too at that point. John was the resident baptist, Jesus was just a newcomer and didn't even claim that he wanted to baptize. He asked to GET baptized.

This point is predicated upon the incorrect belief that baptisms in a mikvah were performed upon a person once; they weren’t.

See above.

And that’s exactly what St. John’s Gospel says.  St. Matthew’s Gospel says that the Baptist knew that, to quote him, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”  The Baptist does not say that this person is Jesus.  All he says is that “He who comes after me."  What you wish he had said was, "He who is right now, in five seconds, immediately upon me finishing this this statement . . ."   

He didn't know who was supposed to be that mysterious baptizer until he saw the dove.

Then St. Matthew says that Jesus arrives, having traveled from Galilee some several miles north, and goes into the mikvah to be baptized.  If Christ had been there the whole time then it is illogical for St. Matthew to suddenly say that Christ had traveled from Galilee. 

Now THAT is an argument ...

The Baptist protests Christ’s request for baptism saying that if anybody should be baptizing someone else it should be Christ doing the baptizing and the Baptist being the recipient of said baptism.  The two gentlemen were standing in a pool of water after one asked to be baptized in that pool of water.  To say that the Baptist means a spiritual baptism is simply illogical.  It is simply more reasonable to assume that the Baptist thinks that Christ will begin baptizing in water like everyone else.

Why would the Baptist think that Jesus needs to baptize him and not vice-versa?

Of course, the Baptist baptizes Christ and the dove lights on Him – thereby confirming to the Baptist who the previously unknown “Baptizer with the Holy Spirit and fire” is.

The point is why the Baptist wanted to be baptized by Jesus before the dove thing.

Who cares?  Impressiveness is not what we’re debating, as if such a thing were measurable.  But that's a side issue – your contradiction still evaporated before your eyes.

You're free to just brush aside any observations that you don't like. As usual. Oh, these Orthodox, such smartypants :D

Brother_Yossarian wrote:

Dald:  The point is not whether or not any of this happened or not. The point is whether these legends are even coherent in themselves! Which they obviously are not, given the contradicting accounts in Matthew and John. Even if Jesus was the Son of God, both those accounts cannot be correct because they claim different points in time of when the Baptist knew who Jesus was.

The accounts are coherent, and contradictions should not shock any of us here.  These writers had heard different things about the baptism, but each gospel writer felt it was important to establish that John the Baptist was a predecessor to Jesus.  I suspect JtB was a very well-respected and beloved first century prophet and the Christians were apparently eager to claim his as one of their own.  Eventually they changed the roles of JtB, of course, by portraying him as the fore-runner announcing the coming of the Messiah, saying "He must increase while I decrease" and all that.

This was good gospel spin here, Dald.  And of course the later spinners might contradict the earlier ones.  But even so, it remains a matter of faith.  In historical terms the baptism lend credence to the existence of the historical Jesus, but in terms of faith, the dove came down and the voice in heaven proclaimed, and the contradictions we see so clearly are made straight, the high points brought low and the valleys filled in until four perfectly congruent and inerrant gospel accounts proclaim the whole and unvarnished Truth.

You just gotta believe, Dald.

Oh, I'm quite sure that John the Baptist was real and that it was known that Jesus went to him to get baptized. But simply because he was a fellow apocalypticist and not because of the dove show.  That of course bothered the later Christians and that's why they tried to reframe the event (since they couldn't simply ignore it) and make it look like the Baptist didn't want to baptize Jesus at first because he considered him superior and only agreed because Jesus urged him to.

jlb32168 wrote:

I didn’t explain the point because I think it’s superfluous to establishing your point that there’s a contradiction.  You speak of this “resident Baptist” concept like mikvahs were chairs in a hair salon and the baptizers were the beauticians who, instead of renting their chairs from the salon owner, rent mikvahs from the local rabbi.  It’s ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is your refusal to address the question since it's crucial for your defense. It's the point your whole defense hinges upon. So again, why should the Baptist want to be baptized by Jesus if he thought that Jesus too would only baptize with water?

[QUOTE] As for John knowing Jesus was the one who should be doing the baptizing it is perfectly reasonable to assume that if God had revealed to the Baptist that one was coming who could baptize with the HS then the Baptist had spiritual discernment that was unlike other men and which enabled him to see that Christ was an exceptional human being, that is, without sin.[/QUOTE]

Haha, 'spiritual discernment'? That's your main (actually only) argument now? :D

Where's the evidence for this in your Bible? Where does it say that he recognized Jesus as being sinless? Seems like you're making things up as you go here ...

But lemme guess, since I cannot prove that your God didn't whisper that to John as well this means that he probably has, right? :rolleyes:

There is nothing of this in the text of course. It's your wishful thinking and personal interpretation, the only things left to avoid having to admit that there is a contradiction.