Baptism - Here we go again

[Br. Bear]

@Rhema

Greetings,

Br. Bear, sorry if I am dense this evening, but what "ceremony of purification"? I don't see a "ceremony of purification" in the text.

I also don't see any "dedication". At a stretch, one might consider their actions as a declaration, in that every male is to be called holy to the Lord. Where in the OT is there any "dedication" ceremony described for such "calling"?

Yes, this was for Mary. (cf. Lev 12:6-8)

It would be interesting to read the OT scripture about what this "to do for him (Jesus)" thing actually was.

Was this passage a paraphrase? Might I ask which translation?

Again, sorry if I am dense, but I fail to see how this has any relation to the baptism of Jesus.

Rhema

Dense? Only this evening, Sir?
All silliness aside, it is the GNT - Good News Translation. Thought you might like that.
I chose it deliberately as a 'paraphrase' as you put it, because it tended to touch on some of what was being written, so far.

In reading a few other 'versions' one can see a similar 'picture', even if the words used [in English, mind you} are different.

Getting back to dense, hmmmm. Tired perhaps? I am sorry, but i 'put it out there' as i figured that it might be visible what the ''relation to'' was/is.

When we read the account of Jesus being baptized, we can easily forget that Jesus started off a baby and then grew [as the text i posted tells], and that while He was and is Emmanuel JESUS, He had not yet 'entered' into the Father's Work. We now very little about Him as youngster or a young man. However, the text i posted tells us that He [via His parents] was doing that required of Jews/Children of Israel under the Law and according to practices of all of that nation.

What we see at and after Baptism, is a 'New Jesus' [that will probably get me into trouble!]. We see Jesus 'starting' His purpose [The will of His father].
Before His Baptism, we see nothing of that.

So, part of my adding this to the discussion at the time i did, was in order to show that the Baptism did mark something in the life of Jesus. Also, that up until the Baptism, He [probably] was doing all the things that the Law required. {the text i posted shows that this is how He started off, at least; a child/person being brought up 'under the Law'. and/or were bound by the Law of the LORD }

Trying that again, let us stop and see that the Baptism has a 'before' and 'after'. I think a lot of Christians have experienced something similar, although most never lived according to the Law {Levitical - Temple - involving priests/priesthood Law} but before Christ were dead in trespass and sin, and after Baptism were as new and began a new life in Christ.

One might also consider that if the normal process for entering the priesthood would require that all the 'proper things' had been undertaken from the start of one's life - as we see, for example, with Jesus being brought to the Temple for what we read in Numbers 8:14, 'all' was 'satisfied'.
Exodus 13:2 also, reads:
Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is Mine.

Luke 2:23
as it hath been written in the Law of the Lord, -- 'Every male opening a womb shall be called holy to the Lord,'

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law,
Galatians 4:4

So, basically, i was offering some extra bits to the discussion that you and Garee @Garee were/are having.

Forgive me please if this is only as clear as mud.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Rhema]

What we see at and after Baptism, is a 'New Jesus' [that will probably get me into trouble!]. We see Jesus 'starting' His purpose [The will of His father].
Before His Baptism, we see nothing of that.

One would think Jesus verbally 'started' (and stated) His purpose well before his baptism:

And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. ... And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?​

(Luke 2:42, 49 KJV)​

So we do see something of that before His baptism.

Good News Translation. Thought you might like that.

Sorry, not a fan. Never was. It introduces what I know as artifacts - creating ideas, viewpoints, and contexts that are just not true.

However, the text i posted tells us that He [via His parents] was doing that required of Jews/Children of Israel under the Law and according to practices of all of that nation.

That's not what I read.

His parents were doing that which they believed were required of them. Jesus wasn't doing anything (save perhaps to honor his mother and father). One might say that Jesus agreed, in that he just "went along with the show," but when 12 He obviously went in another direction.

Exodus 13:2 also, reads:
Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is Mine.

First I will readily admit that I am no expert on Judaic Legalities and Ceremonies. And while I agree that I see a command to "sanctify" the firstborn, just how would such be accomplished? Where is it written how one is to go about doing such a sanctify-ing?

as we see, for example, with Jesus being brought to the Temple for what we read in Numbers 8:14, 'all' was 'satisfied'.

Jesus wasn't of the tribe of Levi, so one could hardly conclude that "all" was satisfied, though.

Forgive me please if this is only as clear as mud.

Not a problem to me. As you can see, if I have a question, I'll just ask it.

But I do understand that you're placing Jesus in space-time history amongst a first century Judaism. But that still begs the question, why was Jesus baptized.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Bethel]

Then truly what should one do with this verse?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

(Mark 16:16 KJV)​

​

​

​

Lets say that "baptism" in your verse isn't spiritual, but is water.​

​

Notice this.....​

​

He that believeth and is water baptized shall be saved, but : he that believeth not,........ shall be damned.​

​

Do you see what the verse has done? its made a very specific distinction.​

Its showing you what DAMNS you, and notice the water is not a part of the damnation......​

​

So, the damnation, which is the 2nd part of the verse, has only to do with BELIEVING...... which is explained by this verse. John 3:36​

Why does the verse not include a lack of water as a part of the damnation?
Because water can't save you, and its the sin of CHRIST REJECTION, that sends you to hell, as the verse is explaining.

 

[Rhema]

Do you see what the verse has done? its made a very specific distinction.Its showing you what DAMNS you, and notice the water is not a part of the damnation......

The exact opposite can also be said. Do you see what the verse has done? It makes a very specific distinction. It's showing you what SAVES you, and baptism IS part of that salvation. Would you rather be SAVED or just not damned? Can one be said to be damned if one just goes "poof" into non-existence after death? You're not saved, but you're not damned either.

Because water can't save you,

And yet that is EXACTLY what is included in the SAVED part -

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

(Mark 16:16 KJV)​

It can't be clearer than that "... and is baptized shall be saved..."

and its the sin of CHRIST REJECTION, that sends you to hell, as the verse is explaining.

Well that depends upon what is to be beliveth-ed or not.

To be truthful, there are many Christians who reject the teachings of Christ, adhering rather to a Pauline Gospel. Would that then be a "Christ Rejection"?

Lets say that "baptism" in your verse isn't spiritual, but is water.

It would seem you'd rather not say that. Which is fine by me, but are you saying that "baptism" is "spiritual" ? I find that most anything can be spiritualized into nothingness.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Bethel]

The exact opposite can also be said. Do you see what the verse has done? It makes a very specific distinction. It's showing you what SAVES you, and baptism IS part of that salvation. Would you rather be SAVED or just not damned? Can one be said to be damned if one just goes "poof" into non-existence after death? You're not saved, but you're not damned either.
And yet that is EXACTLY what is included in the SAVED part -

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

(Mark 16:16 KJV)​

It can't be clearer than that "... and is baptized shall be saved..."

You decided to ignore John 3:36, that explains why a person goes to hell, and in this verse, there is nothing about water baptism.

Also......Jesus never water baptized anyone.
The dying thief on the Cross, is in heaven, and he was not water baptized.
Paul said this.....>"Christ sent me not to water baptize".

So, being born again is what is required to go to heaven.
If water baptism died on the Cross, then trust it to get you to heaven... If not then something else is required and this is why Jesus told us...."you must be born again".

To be "born again", is related to already being born., as you could not be born again, unless you were already born.
The difference is, the first birth, is when you came out of your mother, and the 2nd birth, is to be born again Spiritually by God the Father.
This isn't hard to understand, unless you've been trained by one of the water cults to believe that water is equal to the Spirit of God.

 

[Rhema]

You decided to ignore John 3:36, that explains why a person goes to hell, and in this verse, there is nothing about water baptism.

I find it very strange when a believer uses one verse to supplant and ignore another verse. So what I am hearing you say is that John 3:36 trumps the clear and concise text of Mark 16:16.

It's a common practice amongst Christians, but I still find it strange.

It also allows you to side step the questions I've asked, (implying that you DO understand that "baptism" is tied to salvation in Mark.)

Also......Jesus never water baptized anyone.

This is also a very common Christian myth. (@Br. Bear - FYI)

Such a teaching implies that Jesus had disdain for water baptism, and yet Jesus Himself had His disciples Baptize, in HIS NAME, the most clear command to do so being found here:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

(Matthew 28:19 KJV)​

So I think it very difficult to support a viewpoint that Jesus rejected baptism, or held disdain for baptism. Now with regards to Jesus' personal actions, one reads:

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.​

(John 3:22 KJV)​

HE, Jesus, both tarried with them and baptized. The language is clear that Jesus did both. So yes, Jesus did baptize.

Of course I am aware of this verse as well:

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.​

(John 4:1-3 KJV)​

But the above clarification (unfortunately placed in parenthesis by the KJV), was to show that the "head count" of the number of those baptized by Jesus also included the baptisms by his disciples, not just Jesus himself. I don't find that John the Baptizer ever authorized his disciples to baptize anyone, nor does there seem to be any record that they did so. ( I may be wrong here.)

The text as written, καιτοιγε ιησους αυτος ουκ εβαπτιζεν αλλ οι μαθηται αυτου - is not the way that one would write a teaching or declaration that Jesus never baptized anyone, or that by not baptizing, He showed disdain for such.

Language can be confusing, Bethel. Even today, when we write, there are "hidden words" - phrases that are dropped out by convention, lest writing become burdensome. The "patois" or the stylistic banter of the Greek phrasing and the inclusion of the word "himself" comes into play here. (And the ADDITION of the parenthesis by the KJV translators doesn't help, indeed it adds to the confusion.) One might best read:

"Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John yet Jesus baptized not (all of those) himself, so did (αλλ - in opposition to John) the disciples of him (Jesus)."​

... whereas John did baptize all of those himself ... (those in John's "camp"). Again, verse two is written as a qualifier to explain who was included in the "head count." It was not, nor was it meant to be, an overt declaration that Jesus never water baptized anyone. Such would have been written differently. Instead, what one finds is an afterthought to clarify the "MORE" that were baptized. The number attributed to Jesus included those baptized by Jesus' disciples.

The dying thief on the Cross, is in heaven, and he was not water baptized.

Technically, you are changing the words here. Is that wise? If this story is to be taken as a literal event, then the thief is in paradise, not heaven. One would need to find a specific Bible verse that stipulates "paradise" means "heaven," but there is no such verse. (Perhaps you found one?)

One would also need to find a specific verse that directly stipulates that dead people are now in heaven. Perhaps you could help me find that verse. At this point, I find that scripture states that dead people are dead and in their graves "asleep," not "alive" in heaven somewhere (now). Maybe you could start a thread on that topic, as it's a bit off point for a discussion on baptism. (Let me know.)

Paul said this.....>"Christ sent me not to water baptize".

YEP... and that should get you thinking about all the things Paul said. Why would Paul say something in contradiction to the very words and commands of Jesus? There is a reason why the term "Pauline Christianity" exists.

Pauline Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So..., though Paul had said such, we are still left with this command by Jesus -

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

(Matthew 28:19 KJV)​

I am extremely reluctant to dismiss the very words of Jesus, replacing them with Paul's. Aren't you?

So, being born again is what is required to go to heaven.

And just why wouldn't the term "Born Again" mean, "believes and is baptized"?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;​

(Mark 16:16a KJV)​

If water baptism died on the Cross, then trust it to get you to heaven... If not then something else is required and this is why Jesus told us...."you must be born again".

Where did you ever get the idea that "water baptism died on the Cross" ?? Mark 16:16 was spoken by Jesus AFTER the Resurrection. Your "proof text" in John was not. Why would Jesus even mention something after the Resurrection if such a thing became (for lack of a better word) defunct at the Cross? And why, if such did "die," would Peter say this?

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.​

(Acts 10:47-48 KJV)​

Why would "Christ" allow Peter to baptize, but then tell Paul that he (Paul) shouldn't ? (And yet Paul did baptize.) I would just say that one should be cautious to "forbid water" as part of being Born Again. Unless you think Peter to be mistaken. Maybe you could clarify. Was Peter mistaken here?

Again, just why wouldn't the term "Born Again" mean, "believes and is baptized"?

This isn't hard to understand, unless you've been trained by one of the anti-water cults to believe that water is disdained by the Spirit of God.

Kindly,
Rhema

PS: ALL my question are questions. They are not "statements made in the form of a question."

 

[Bethel]

I find it very strange when a believer uses one verse to supplant and ignore another verse. So what I am hearing you say is that John 3:36 trumps the clear and concise text of Mark 16:16.

Jesus never water baptized anyone.
Paul said that "Christ sent me not to water baptize".

If you study the NT, then you'll notice in the Acts of the Apostles that every time someone is water baptized, they believe and are born again first.

You could start with the Eunuch in Acts 8. He had to believe, and once he did, Phillip allowed him to be water baptized as water baptism always follows being born again, it never causes it, as how could water save anyone?

There are 2 denominations that are obsessed with water.

Catholic, and Jehovah's witness. Both teach that the city water supply is a part of the Cross of Christ, as if both are necessary to be born again.

 

[Rhema]

Jesus never water baptized anyone.

I've already proved otherwise. What have you to support such an absurd claim?

Paul said that "Christ sent me not to water baptize".

Paul said a lot of things. I was not aware that Paul was the Son of God. Why do you think that Paul's words should supplant that which came from the very mouth of the Son of God?

If you study the NT,

Bethel, I've translated the NT. ... so get off your high horse.

every time someone is water baptized, they believe and are born again first.
.... as water baptism always follows being born again,

So then why are you Hostile to water baptism?

And that's a serious question. One that you need to ask yourself. You gave the Ethiopian as an example. So... once the Ethiopian believed, why wasn't that the end of it? Why DID Philip then have him baptized?

It's right in front of your eyes - you even said "every time someone is water baptized..." so you KNOW that they WERE water baptized. And you also said this: "water baptism always follows". Why? Why would water baptism always follow, if such a thing has no salvific merit? Why, if such a thing has no value, would the Son of God COMMAND it to be done?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

(Matthew 28:19 KJV)​

Why do you fight against the command of God? It's a valid question. I would suggest you try to answer it.

Both teach that the city water supply is a part of the Cross of Christ

Nonsense. Where did you get that idea from? Cite just ONE pamphlet or source where either state that the city water supply is a part of the Cross of Christ, or stop spreading fake theology.

Rhema

 

[Bethel]

I've already proved otherwise. What have you to support such an absurd claim?

It's not possible to prove that Jesus baptized anyone, as he never did.
So, if you can't be honest, and just want to rant about water, then that's on you.

As i told you.

2 denominations exist to preach "water"........ the "cult of mary", and the Jehovah's witness cult.

I've already proved otherwise. What have you to support such an absurd claim?


Paul said a lot of things. I was not aware that Paul was the Son of God. Why do you think that Paul's words should supplant that which came from the very mouth of the Son of God?

You are not aware of a lot the NT teaches.
For example, Paul told you this....>"be a follower of ME, as i follow Christ".

And you are not aware of this......Paul said....>"my Gospel"...
Notice that? Paul said that the Gospel of the Grace of God, ....he defined as "my Gospel".......3x.
So, that is not your gospel of water.
believe it.

Bethel, I've translated the NT. ... so get off your high horse.

So then why are you Hostile to water baptism?

Translating what you can't understand, is sort of ridiculous, isn't it. ?

Also, im not hostile to water baptism, im hostle to Legalism that pretends to be Christianity.

Why do you fight against the command of God?

You're confused.
See, because you believe that water has magic power to wash sin away, ... you can't believe that the Blood of Jesus is actually the power of God that redeems.
You falsely combine them, as if they are the same redemption.

So, its not me that is against water, its you that is promoting water instead of the Cross and the Blood Atonement.

Thats the issue.

 

[Br. Bear]

the Blood of Jesus is actually the power of God that redeems.
You falsely combine them, as if they are the same redemption.

So, its not me that is against water, its you that is promoting water instead of the Cross and the Blood Atonement.

Thats the issue.

You might find that it is the love of God that redeems and we should remember His Love.

That is the issue

Post in Peace

 

[Bethel]

You might find that it is the love of God that redeems and we should remember His Love.

Thank you.
I would have to add that its the Blood of Christ and the Death of Christ that is the "love" that redeemes.
John 3:16 says that God loves the world, yet, the world is not redeemed by this love, until each comes to the Cross and receives the "Gift of Salvation".

 

[Br. Bear]

Thank you.
You be sure to remember it also.

Greetings,

May I ask?

Do you understand what 'we' means?

You might find that it is the love of God that redeems and we should remember His Love.

That is the issue

Post in Peace

Bless you ....><>

 

[Bethel]

Greetings,
May I ask?
Do you understand what 'we' means?
Bless you ....><>

Shalom to you also.

<B><

 

[Rhema]

It's not possible to prove that Jesus baptized anyone, as he never did.

It is possible because scripture says that Jesus baptized:

Why should I even talk with you if you won't read my posts? (That's rather rude you know....) And why can't you address what I've written?

But if you need me to repeat myself...

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.​

(John 3:22 KJV)​

HE, Jesus, both tarried with them and baptized. The language is clear that Jesus did both. The text does NOT say, "and the disciples baptized." So yes, Jesus did baptize. The very scripture states that he did. Why do you reject the above scripture? (It's a valid question...) In love, I would caution you about the person who taught you to reject John 3:22. They made a mistake.

So, if you can't be honest,

So, if you can't believe scripture, ...

and just want to rant about water, then that's on you.

... and just want to rant against water, then that's on you.

As i told you.

2 denominations exist to preach "water"........ the "cult of mary", and the Jehovah's witness cult.

OHHHH.... YOU told me. So since I asked that you provide supporting evidence, and you can't, you'll just repeat yourself ?? Who are you? (Other than someone who rants against water baptism in opposition to Jesus' commands?)

You are not aware of a lot the NT teaches.
For example, Paul told you this....>"be a follower of ME, as i follow Christ".

YES, I know that Paul "told me" this. However Paul is not my master, neither is Paul the Son of God.

And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.​

(John 10:5 KJV)​

I am exceedingly aware of a lot the NT teaches, I am just astonished that you don't understand its implications. Did you ever ask yourself why Paul wanted people to follower him? Why didn't Paul just say "Follow Christ as I follow Christ" ??

And you are not aware of this......Paul said....>"my Gospel"...

But I am WELL aware that Paul preached his own Gospel, and a gospel that would seem to be in opposition to the Gospel that Jesus taught. I am also aware of people who believe there are two separate gospels. Are you one of those?

So, that is not your gospel of water.
believe it.

Strawman. You've created this nonsense of the "Gospel of Water" and then attributed your nonsense to me. As such, it can be dismissed with prejudice.

As far as what to believe. I follow Jesus. Am I wrong to assume that you do as well? If you do follow Jesus, then why do you preach against his commands and subvert his words ??

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.​

(Mark 16:16 KJV)​

​

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:​

(Matthew 28:19 KJV)​

You still have not addressed why someone should reject the above commands of Jesus. It is not inappropriate at this point to ask if you are indeed a disciple of Jesus.

Translating what you can't understand, is sort of ridiculous, isn't it. ?

Reading the NT texts in their original language is most certainly not ridiculous. What you call "understanding" may clearly be seen as a rejection of Jesus' words.

Also, im not hostile to water baptism, im hostle to Legalism that pretends to be Christianity.

One would rather that you be hostile to the rejection of Jesus' commands - a rejection that truly does exist in your replies. You call it "Legalism" to create an excuse to disobey the command of Jesus. I just call it disobedience, and then wonder why you rail against these clear commands.

You're confused.
See, because you believe that water has magic power to wash sin away, ...

Truly, you have no clue what I believe, save that I believe in obeying the commands of Jesus, and that Jesus commanded baptism as a part of being "born again". If the inappropriate and incorrect use of inflammatory adjectives such as "magic" helps you to sleep at night after proclaiming to the world that they should disobey Jesus, well then... call me a magician.

... you can't believe that the Blood of Jesus is actually the power of God that redeems.

At this point it would seem that I ought to clarify... No, I can't belive that offering up a human sacrifice to God will achieve redemption, anymore than offering up the blood of bulls and goats. Why do you believe in offering up human blood sacrifices (okay just one) to the gods (okay just one) would achieve anything? Your gospel sounds very Aztec to me.

But perhaps I misunderstand your views. As far as baptism goes, though, I'm rather sure you shouldn't misunderstand my views. Jesus commanded it. And you preach disobedience against that command.

Thats the issue.

Yep.

In obedience to Christ,
Rhema

 

[Bethel]

I

At this point it would seem that I ought to clarify... No, I can't belive that offering up a human sacrifice to God will achieve redemption,
Rhema

You just defines yourself as a Christ rejector, which explains why you are so interested in Water baptism.

So, according to your words, you're not born again, as unless you BELIEVE that Christ died on the Cross, and rose again.......doing this to achieve Salvation as John 3:16, that God offers as a gift, then by your own Christ rejecting words, you have stated that you exit here.

John 3:36

""""The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects[a] the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him

 

[Bethel]

It is possible because scripture says that Jesus baptized:

You need to put down your commentaries, and open a New Testament.

Let me show you something...

Never read one verse, without studying to find out if there is a context that you are missing.
And in your water baptism rant, you are missing quite a bit.

Now look at this verse that says that Jesus does not water Baptize.
I'll post it for you using 2 translations.
You can check 40 more if you like, and they all teach that Jesus does not water baptize, as i told you.

John 4:1-2 (KJV)

1 “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,”

1. Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who water baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee."""

 

[Bethel]

.......

 

[Bethel]

It is possible because scripture says that Jesus baptized:

You need to put down your commentaries, and open a New Testament.

Let me show you something...

Never only read one verse, without studying to find out if there is a context that you are missing.

Now look at this verse that says that Jesus DOES NOT water Baptize.
I'll post it for you using 2 translations.
You can check 40 more if you like, and they all teach that Jesus does not water baptize, as i told you.

John 4:1-2 (KJV)

1. Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who water baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee."""

1. ""Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee."

 

[Br. Bear]

@Bethel

Please take more care in how you interact with other members

While you might consider that you have something better to share on the forums, it is how you present such that will make any difference .

If you ignore this message and other messages about how you interact with other members, you will be asked to leave.

I am sure that you are able to post politely... please show me that I am correct


Bless you ....><>

EDIT : Member Bethel has been given a few days vacation.
Let us all remember to exchange replies politely

 

[Garee]

You need to put down your commentaries, and open a New Testament.

Let me show you something...

Never only read one verse, without studying to find out if there is a context that you are missing.

Now look at this verse that says that Jesus DOES NOT water Baptize.
I'll post it for you using 2 translations.
You can check 40 more if you like, and they all teach that Jesus does not water baptize, as i told you.

John 4:1-2 (KJV)

1. Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who water baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee."""

1. ""Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee."

Taking one verse and creating a doctrine with no other witnesses does not reflect a doctrine of God .

John 4 King James Version When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

And not. . did not baptize the disciples. . again did baptize just the disciples . .That kind of idea would destroy the new reformed and therefore restored order of priesthood of believers from all the nations of the world men and woman .

Jesus did baptize his disciples so they to as members a new kingdom of priest after the order of Melchedik . the high priest connaturally. without beginning of Spirt life (Hebrews 7) or end thereof . . no longer after the tribe of Levi this was so that the disciples could also offer those who had a desire to preach the gospel a little water to signify the work of Holy Spirit .

Its the reason for the discussion .How could Jesus the Son of man from the tribe of Judah perform that which is assigned to the Levi family. ?John answered as the father gave him word A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. In other words God is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires no man can turn him .

John 3: 25 Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.