Why Was Jesus Baptised???????????

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction.

lil bitchiness
Oh thats interesting.

I will just offer what I think, although I don't even know about Baptism of Jesus.

doesn't Jesus being the son of God, disqualify him from original sin, since he is not from Adam and Eve?
Maybe Jesus nulled the Adam and Eve theory?

Goddess Kali
OMG...that reminds of of another question..which I will raise in another thread...

debbiejo
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction. It doesn't make since does it??? But if you believe Jesus was just an enlightened man that people would call him the Son of God and he being Jewish would go through the same Jewish customs of baptism just like everyone else.

lil bitchiness
Wait! What? Jews get Baptized? Are you sure?

debbiejo
LOL......I just woke up, now I'm confused.......hahaha. I'll have to look that one up, though I was thinking about John the Baptist being a Jew, and I do know that baptism is even older than Christianity. lol

I believe it was called a different name and considered a purifcation right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

siriuswriter
In my opinion, Jesus was baptized because he wanted to show humanity that he was both fully human and both fully devine - that he could both completely understand us and yet save us at the same time. It was mostly a symbolic thing.

Barker
I think that in my religion it was to set an example or something, and show how important the ordinance is.

But I'm not to sure. haermm

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction.

The Christian concept of sin is problematic, and you have hit on one of the biggies.

The truth of the matter is that Jesus was just a human male. He was a part of his society, and therefore needed to accommodate the rituals of his world. Submerging oneself under water before entering the temple was a common practice of the priests. By being baptized by John, Jesus was accepting a position of priest of John the baptized.

Regret
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction. Christ was without sin.

The idea of original sin was a silly story made up to frighten Christians and justify improper attitudes toward anyone not Christian. If there were no inherent, born in, sin, there would have been sin in the actions taken towards nonbelievers, thus the invention of original sin. Also, original sin allowed priests to be held in awe, fear and reverence above reproach, thus allowing priests to behave improperly and if someone attacked the credibility of a priest, that person would not be saved.

Christ was baptized because baptism is required to reenter Gods presence, regardless of the fact that Christ was directly God's physical son.

AngryManatee
Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Maybe Jesus nulled the Adam and Eve theory?

You didn't know jesus had a Null Ray like Starscream? rolling on floor laughing

Devil King
I think he got baptized for the same reason all christians do today. He wanted to go to heaven; and knowing he was just a man, wanted to take all the precautions neccessary.

TRH
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction. Maybe to show as an example to his followers?

Nellinator
Originally posted by TRH
Maybe to show as an example to his followers?
That's part of it.

Ultimately, people are born with a sinful nature, not actually in sin. Jesus simply never sinned.

Jesus's baptism is very important because the spirit of God descends upon him and God confirms that Jesus is His son. That's the basic theology on the matter.

Goddess Kali
perhaps it was just a symbol, like most of christianity is....like most religion is...

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
I think he got baptized for the same reason all christians do today. He wanted to go to heaven; and knowing he was just a man, wanted to take all the precautions neccessary. That makes no sense. Baptism was in no way connected to salvation until John preached baptism for the remission of sins (very different in meaning from previous forms of baptism in Judaism) even though he considered himself below Jesus.

doan_m
The way I see it, the baptism was more meant for a way of saying " I accept God into my life and soul" and I accept God and His faith.

Bicnarok

Storm
John himself wondered, and would have told Jesus that he needed to be baptized by him.
Jesus replied: "Let it be so now, it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." As Jesus came up out of the water, heaven opened, and the Spirit of God, like a dove, descended upon him. Witnesses to the baptism heard a voice from heaven saying, "This is my son, whom I love. With him I am well pleased."

Jesus was confessing sin on behalf of the people. He was identifying with those who were repenting. He was also setting an example for his followers, and was foreshadowing his death, burial and resurrection. And he was announcing the beginning of his ministry on earth.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction.

I don't see that as a contraction but more of an act of humbleness. It displays and shows that man can baptize his fellow man and God approves it. It's clearly a display of spiritual brotherhood.

Devil King
Originally posted by Nellinator
That makes no sense. Baptism was in no way connected to salvation until John preached baptism for the remission of sins (very different in meaning from previous forms of baptism in Judaism) even though he considered himself below Jesus.

Then it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Jesus was a man open to the interpretations of religion from a variety of people. If part of the interpretation of John's particular version included baptism, then being the flawed and very human man Jesus was, he would have done it.

Shakyamunison

Devil King
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But they (Christians) believe that Jesus was pure and without sin.

And they also believe he is a god made into flesh, but like your other point, they'd be wrong.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Devil King
And they also believe he is a god made into flesh, but like your other point, they'd be wrong.

But they point at the bible and say it says I'm right, because the bible says it's right, therefore, you must be wrong.

Like I said: Circular logic always gives me a headache.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Barker
I think that in my religion it was to set an example or something, and show how important the ordinance is.

But I'm not to sure. haermm See? Jesus followed the ordinances..ie the law.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction.

Baptism does not purge anyone of sin. Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousness (remember: Jesus is our role model, He was setting the example for us to follow).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Baptism does not purge anyone of sin. Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousness (remember: Jesus is our role model, He was setting the example for us to follow).

So then, we should all build crosses and hang ourselves from them?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So then, we should all build crosses and hang ourselves from them?

If you want to.

Jesus does command His followers to take up their cross and follow Him. But He does not mean literally.

big grin

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If you want to.

Jesus does command His followers to take up their cross and follow Him. But He does not mean literally.

big grin

The why be baptized literally? Symbolic should be just fine. or not?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The why be baptized literally? Symbolic should be just fine. or not?

To fulfill all righteousness and blaze the trail for us.

Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, we could not pay for our own sins that is why it is ridiculous to suggest that we should allow ourselves to be crucified (it would be suicide and it would not accomplish anything).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
... it would not accomplish anything...

That is very true. laughing

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
Then it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Jesus was a man open to the interpretations of religion from a variety of people. If part of the interpretation of John's particular version included baptism, then being the flawed and very human man Jesus was, he would have done it. No it doesn't. Jesus specifically identified John's baptism as a necessary predecessor for himself. Jesus never identified himself as lesser than John, or a sinner. John identified himself as unworthy of baptising Jesus and Jesus was always identifed as greater than John. Did Jesus require salvation? There is no indication that he did it for salvation, that he thought he needed forgiveness, or anything else. Jesus never sacrifices because he doesn't need to, he is clearly described as being without sin. So, no it doesn't make any sense.

Anyways, Storm did a good job of explaining it.

Devil King
Originally posted by Nellinator
No it doesn't. Jesus specifically identified John's baptism as a necessary predecessor for himself. Jesus never identified himself as lesser than John, or a sinner. John identified himself as unworthy of baptising Jesus and Jesus was always identifed as greater than John. Did Jesus require salvation? There is no indication that he did it for salvation, that he thought he needed forgiveness, or anything else. Jesus never sacrifices because he doesn't need to, he is clearly described as being without sin. So, no it doesn't make any sense.

Anyways, Storm did a good job of explaining it.


What does this baptism have to do with who is lesser or greater?

And why would there be any indication of Jesus having a flawed human emotion like fear of what came after? The bible doesn't even mention all those awkward teenage years, you know the sexual transformation of Baby Jesus into the man who ended up on the cross. For the most important human being that has ever existed, there's tragically little first hand information written about him.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
What does this baptism have to do with who is lesser or greater?

And why would there be any indication of Jesus having a flawed human emotion like fear of what came after? The bible doesn't even mention all those awkward teenage years, you know the sexual transformation of Baby Jesus into the man who ended up on the cross. For the most important human being that has ever existed, there's tragically little first hand information written about him. John started the baptism. For someone greater than him to want to be baptized is very odd. If it was not, John, as the creator of the water baptism for remission of sins, would not have resisted baptizing Jesus. Jesus's baptism, as Storm mentioned, is very different than anyone else's. There is something else going on there than there is in any other baptism that had taken place, or has since then.

Devil King
Originally posted by Nellinator
John started the baptism. For someone greater than him to want to be baptized is very odd. If it was not, John, as the creator of the water baptism for remission of sins, would not have resisted baptizing Jesus. Jesus's baptism, as Storm mentioned, is very different than anyone else's. There is something else going on there than there is in any other baptism that had taken place, or has since then.

Yeah, I don't need a "History" lesson. And yeah, I get that Jesus' baptism was different, what with the sky cracking open and all. Apparently, Jesus was god-made-man but experienced absolutely nothing about being a man. I mean, I've got pictures of my baptism, and I don't see the virgin mary on a piece of toast or the sky cracking open. No sex, couldn't stay dead, walking on water and the sky cracking open every time he left the house....it had to be rough.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
What does this baptism have to do with who is lesser or greater?

And why would there be any indication of Jesus having a flawed human emotion like fear of what came after? The bible doesn't even mention all those awkward teenage years, you know the sexual transformation of Baby Jesus into the man who ended up on the cross. For the most important human being that has ever existed, there's tragically little first hand information written about him.

I am glad that you acknowledge that Jesus is the most important Human that has ever existed (He still exists though and His divine privileges have been reinstated).

Jesus teenage years are of no consequence because they would not have helped anyone. So that information was not deemed relevant by God. But only the most helpful and expedient information about Jesus has been recorded.

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am glad that you acknowledge that Jesus is the most important Human that has ever existed (He still exists though and His divine privileges have been reinstated).

Jesus teenage years are of no consequence because they would not have helped anyone. So that information was not deemed relevant by God. But only the most helpful and expedient information about Jesus has been recorded.


Yeah, like I need to tell you I don't think he's the most important. He's up there, but as you said in another thread:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(he only has the sway that people give him).

As for the rest of your post, I'm glad you acknowledge that the majority of his life was a waste of time.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, like I need to tell you I don't think he's the most important. He's up there, but as you said in another thread:



As for the rest of your post, I'm glad you acknowledge that the majority of his life was a waste of time.

I did not acknowledge that the majority of Jesus' life was a waste of time--you did. I believe those years were very crucial for Him, but not necessarily for important for us. Besides (thank you Holy Spirit for the revelation). I believe that Adam was at least thirty years of age at the moment that he was created and disobeyed God. Perhaps Jesus had to wait until He was thirty years of age before He could undo what Adam set in motion. Jesus is called the last Adam. The first Adam disobeyed God and plunged this world into sin. But Jesus--the last Adam--obeyed God and has made salvation from sin available.

Those years of Jesus' life were of no consequence in terms of them requiring mention because they would not help anyone (Jesus did not began His earthly ministry until He was thirty years of age).

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did not acknowledge that the majority of Jesus' life was a waste of time--you did. I believe those years were very crucial for Him, but not necessarily for important for us. Besides (thank you Holy Spirit for the revelation). I believe that Adam was at least thirty years of age at the moment that he was created and disobeyed God. Perhaps Jesus had to wait until He was thirty years of age before He could undo what Adam set in motion. Jesus is called the last Adam. The first Adam disobeyed God and plunged this world into sin. But Jesus--the last Adam--obeyed God and has made salvation from sin available.

Those years of Jesus' life were of no consequence in terms of them requiring mention because they would not help anyone (Jesus did not began His earthly ministry until He was thirty years of age).

What does Adam have to do with anything, much less how old Jesus needed to be when he died? Can you point out for us where you found this crucial tidbit of information on Adam's "age" the day he was created...which ever day it was? You think god dropped the axe on himself at the age of thirty three because he'd done enough to get his point across? Maybe instead of running his mouth he should have been writing this stuff down. Surely there were people around him that could read and write; maybe a few more scribes and a few less fishermen would have been a better way for god to have gone about beginning his "earthly ministry".

Jesus' life was of no consequence? For the supposed savior of mankind, I would make the assumption that there isn't too much that isn't important.

But, then again, I know the difference between a parable and mythology.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
Surely there were people around him that could read and write; maybe a few more scribes and a few less fishermen would have been a better way for god to have gone about beginning his "earthly ministry".

But, then again, I know the difference between a parable and mythology. Because that's what Jesus wanted? People to write down what he said and for scribes (very rare in those days) to be burdened with preaching the gospel in abrasive environments? That kinda bastardizes the part of God and Jesus's message that God uses our weakness to make us strong. Besides that, there is a healthy amount of scribal material about Jesus. Very healthy considering the time period he was born in. How many people from that time do we have the history of before they were in a position of power? Who was supposed to record Jesus's teenage years? Some panicky chum from his childhood? Apparently God chose the beset beginning for his ministry considering that is the most widespread religion in the world.

No, you can't. You just think you can.

debbiejo
I wonder if all true hard believing Christians would tattoo a cross on their foreheads to show their love for Jesus so that we could see if they're are living up to his words?

Would anyone here?

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
What does Adam have to do with anything, much less how old Jesus needed to be when he died? Can you point out for us where you found this crucial tidbit of information on Adam's "age" the day he was created...which ever day it was? You think god dropped the axe on himself at the age of thirty three because he'd done enough to get his point across? Maybe instead of running his mouth he should have been writing this stuff down. Surely there were people around him that could read and write; maybe a few more scribes and a few less fishermen would have been a better way for god to have gone about beginning his "earthly ministry".

Jesus' life was of no consequence? For the supposed savior of mankind, I would make the assumption that there isn't too much that isn't important.

But, then again, I know the difference between a parable and mythology.


You don't read very well do you? I said that I believed that Adam was at least thirty (i.e. created at that age because that age represents optimum maturity).

I didn't say that Jesus' life was of no consequence (boy you have the most extreme case of selecting reading that I have ever encountered). Go back and re-read what I said, I am not about re-write my post.

Nellinator
Probably not because it would be stupid to tattoo a cross to your forehead for those reasons.

debbiejo
You would not do that for your Lord? What if he asked you to.

Nellinator
Then I would.

Devil King
Originally posted by Nellinator
Because that's what Jesus wanted? People to write down what he said and for scribes (very rare in those days) to be burdened with preaching the gospel in abrasive environments? That kinda bastardizes the part of God and Jesus's message that God uses our weakness to make us strong. Besides that, there is a healthy amount of scribal material about Jesus. Very healthy considering the time period he was born in. How many people from that time do we have the history of before they were in a position of power? Who was supposed to record Jesus's teenage years? Some panicky chum from his childhood? Apparently God chose the beset beginning for his ministry considering that is the most widespread religion in the world.

So, you're agreeing that there was no consequence to Jesus from the age of three to 30?

Christ, you people will come up with any amount of flawed logic you can to justify, won't you? Feel free to point out all the "many" first hand accounts written down by people who were standing there.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, you can't. You just think you can.

You do know that all these first hand accounts that you seem to think exist are "records" of what Jesus said, right? Most of his sermons are parables. You know that, right? The creation story is mythology, at least until you get to people who want to say it's a metaphore for the 6 billion year history of the planet.

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You don't read very well do you? I said that I believed that Adam was at least thirty (i.e. created at that age because that age represents optimum maturity).

And I asked where you got that assumption. And are you ****ing kidding me, you think 30 is the optimum age of maturity? How old are you?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't say that Jesus' life was of no consequence

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus teenage years are of no consequence

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
And I asked where you got that assumption. And are you ****ing kidding me, you think 30 is the optimum age of maturity? How old are you?

It is my belief (what about that don't you understand)?

Yes I have heard that 30 is the optimum age in terms of maturity.

My personal information is a waste of time laughing out loud and it's of no consequence laughing


Like I aforesaid, I did not say that Jesus life (from the time He was 12 until He turned 30) was a waste of time, I said that it was of no consequence because it wouldn't help anyone. Waste of time and of no consequence are not synonymous.

eek! big grin

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is my belief (what about that don't you understand)?

Yes I have heard that 30 is the optimum age in terms of maturity.

My personal information is a waste of time laughing out loud and it's of no consequence laughing


Like I aforesaid, I did not say that Jesus life (from the time He was 12 until He turned 30) was a waste of time, I said that it was of no consequence because it wouldn't help anyone.

eek! big grin

Don't pretend you think I don't understand what you said, I get it. It's your "belief". On what are you basing this belief?

As for a waste of time, no you didn't say that. I did You said "Of no consequence" A pretty shitty way to think about your favorite celebrity.

Need it again?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't say that Jesus' life was of no consequence

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus teenage years are of no consequence

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
Don't pretend you think I don't understand what you said, I get it. It's your "belief". On what are you basing this belief?

As for a waste of time, no you didn't say that. I did You said "Of no consequence" A pretty shitty way to think about your favorite celebrity.

Need it again?

That's it, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. It appears that you are incapable of comprehending what you read.

I do not think that Jesus was of no consequence (something appears to be lacking in your intelligence to comprehend what you read), I said that Jesus teenage years was of no consequence--not Jesus the Person was of no consequence.

You can quote what I said until Jesus returns but you appear to be incapable of understanding what you read.

Oh, Jesus is my God, Lord, Savior, and soon-returning King--not my favorite celebrity.

big grin

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That's it, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. It appears that you are incapable of comprehending what you read.

I do not think that Jesus was of no consequence (something appears to be lacking in your intelligence to comprehend what you read), I said that Jesus teenage years was of no consequence--not Jesus the Person was of no consequence.

You can quote what I said until Jesus returns but you appear to be incapable of understanding what you read.

Oh, Jesus is my God, Lord, Savior, and soon-returning King--not my favorite celebrity.

big grin

If you want to blame this on someone's inability to comprehend, I'd suggest you look at yourself. I said I find it odd that you seem to think that a man as important to teh world as Jesus is in your opinion, why would there be 25 missing years of his life.

You said his teenage years were of no consequence, I countered that you of all people should think there were no part of his life that wasn't important to your devotion to him.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Devil King
If you want to blame this on someone's inability to comprehend, I'd suggest you look at yourself. I said I find it odd that you seem to think that a man as important to teh world as Jesus is in your opinion, why would there be 25 missing years of his life.

You said his teenage years were of no consequence, I countered that you of all people should think there were no part of his life that wasn't important to your devotion to him.

First you can't comprehend very well, now you can't add either? (The problem has been compounded).

From the time Jesus was 12 until He turned 30 is 18 years.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
First you can't comprehend very well, now you can't add either? (The problem has been compounded).

From the time Jesus was 12 until He turned 30 is 18 years.

18 years is more then enough time to grow up, go to India and return home.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
So, you're agreeing that there was no consequence to Jesus from the age of three to 30?

Christ, you people will come up with any amount of flawed logic you can to justify, won't you? Feel free to point out all the "many" first hand accounts written down by people who were standing there.



You do know that all these first hand accounts that you seem to think exist are "records" of what Jesus said, right? Most of his sermons are parables. You know that, right? The creation story is mythology, at least until you get to people who want to say it's a metaphore for the 6 billion year history of the planet. Are you daft? I'd tell you to read my post again, but I doubt you'd get the gist. No I don't think it is of no consequence. But, I guess you will use whatever faulty logic you want to support that false assumption won't you.

First-hand records? Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John. That's rather incredible for someone from that time period.

Yes, they are records recorded by eyewitnesses in three cases. Luke is also a record of eyewitness accounts. Yes, Jesus spoke in parables a lot of the time. However, his most famous sermon was the Sermon on the Mount and it contained very few parables if any (I don't feel like going to check, but feel free to check for yourself). Sadly, neither of these have any bearing on this discussion.

The creation story has many interpretations, none of which count as mythology. Metaphor in many cases, not mythology.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
18 years is more then enough time to grow up, go to India and return home. Too bad there isn't any support for that other than parallelomanic suppositions.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Too bad there isn't any support for that other than parallelomanic suppositions.

Just like the rest of the information we have about Jesus. wink

Goddess Kali
Many beleive that Jesus learned a lot about his own philosophies from the East (Buddhist Teachings)


He did teach:

To love thy neighbor

Love thy enemy

Turn the Other Cheek


Unlike many of the teachings that preceded it in Judaism

leonheartmm
so according to JIA, john took up a practice which was nothing more than empty tradition with no prupose. and god in all his originalty, chose the SAME already existing empty practice and declared that itd wash away the original sin of christians. LMAO, thas stupid, the baptism is seen as holy, are you saying theres ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HOLY ABOUT THE ACT and its just belief that makes it holy????? furthermore, if the act as described in the bible, purges one of THE ORIGINAL SIN{yet jia tries to avoid this and interpret it as all sin and say that baptism doesnt wach you of general sin} then why oh WHY did jesus have to insist on it, seeing as he was sinless AND was god so he wudnt wanna lead his believers astray by THEN again maiking baptism the purging of the original sin{or MAYBE, it just tells you that paul was a liar who heard nothing from the apparent, "real" holy spirit.

Devil King
Originally posted by Nellinator
Are you daft? I'd tell you to read my post again, but I doubt you'd get the gist. No I don't think it is of no consequence. But, I guess you will use whatever faulty logic you want to support that false assumption won't you.

That's why I presented it as a question. JIA said the middle of Jesus' life is of no cosequence to anyone, thus it wasn't recorded. But given the nature of the character of Jesus in christianity, you'd think all you christians would want to know what happened.

Originally posted by Nellinator
First-hand records? Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John. That's rather incredible for someone from that time period.

Yes, they are records recorded by eyewitnesses in three cases. Luke is also a record of eyewitness accounts. Yes, Jesus spoke in parables a lot of the time. However, his most famous sermon was the Sermon on the Mount and it contained very few parables if any (I don't feel like going to check, but feel free to check for yourself). Sadly, neither of these have any bearing on this discussion.

You're gonna stick with that?

Originally posted by Nellinator
The creation story has many interpretations, none of which count as mythology. Metaphor in many cases, not mythology.

You think there aren't people in this world that take the story literally? JIA springs to mind.

PONG_MASTER
It's Jesus. He can do whatever the hell he wants, **** chops.

Devil King
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(The problem has been compounded).


Originally posted by Nellinator
Are you daft?

It's amazing how the two of you post at the same time, get defensive at the same time, rush to each other's rescue, and then still fail...

I think you're letting the cracks show.

Goddess Kali
I wouldn't compare Nellinator to JIA, Nellinator atleast has some reason and logic to back him up, while JIA is just a tool...

I think I can even recall that Nellinator admitted he is open to the slightest possibilility that he MAY be wrong, but chooses to keep his Faith for his own reasons...or was that Regret who said that ?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Many beleive that Jesus learned a lot about his own philosophies from the East (Buddhist Teachings)


He did teach:

To love thy neighbor

Love thy enemy

Turn the Other Cheek


Unlike many of the teachings that preceded it in Judaism Loving thy neighbour is called the greatest law in the Judaic law which was written circa 1400 BC. It definitely does not come from Buddhism. I'd suggest you read Isaiah 58:6-12. This also predates Buddhism and is what a lot of Jesus's teachings were identical to. Isaiah is often seen as the OT gospel because of the suffering servant prophecy, but Isaiah 58 is also very relevant to what Jesus taught.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's why I presented it as a question. JIA said the middle of Jesus' life is of no cosequence to anyone, thus it wasn't recorded. But given the nature of the character of Jesus in christianity, you'd think all you christians would want to know what happened.



You're gonna stick with that?



You think there aren't people in this world that take the story literally? JIA springs to mind.
We might want to know what happened, but we don't need to know. It is said that the gospels contain nothing that isn't pertinent to our salvation. It would probably detract from that if Jesus's life between the ages of 12 and 30 were recorded.

Maybe, we shall see.

I know many people take it literally. It's rather obvious is it not?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
...We might want to know what happened, but we don't need to know. It is said that the gospels contain nothing that isn't pertinent to our salvation. It would probably detract from that if Jesus's life between the ages of 12 and 30 were recorded.

Maybe, we shall see.

I know many people take it literally. It's rather obvious is it not?

That's because between that ages of 12 and 30, Jesus was not saved. no expression

Nellinator
But he was saved before he was 12? I think you might be cracking a joke, but I'm a Christian so I don't understand jokes.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
But he was saved before he was 12? I think you might be cracking a joke, but I'm a Christian so I don't understand jokes.

But I'm a Buddhist and I can't have fun. laughing out loud

Nellinator
Very true. Buddhism sucks.

debbiejo
Actually no, it's a sin.. sad

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Nellinator
Very true. Buddhism sucks.

evil face

debbiejo
Jesus was baptised for Jewish purification rights, Paul combined it with Mithraism.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by leonheartmm

baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

Umm...no, a baptism is to show one's obedience to God. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Umm...no, a baptism is to show one's obedience to God. It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin.

Why did Jesus have to show his obedience to god?

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did Jesus have to show his obedience to god?

The son of God showing obedience to his Father? A son is suppose to be obedient to his father at all times. Also Jesus came to teach not just through his words but through his actions. Most people say do as I say not as I do. Jesus basically said do as I say and as I do.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ESB -1138
The son of God showing obedience to his Father? A son is suppose to be obedient to his father at all times. Also Jesus came to teach not just through his words but through his actions. Most people say do as I say not as I do. Jesus basically said do as I say and as I do.

But I have been told that Jesus was god. If that is true, then the baptism of Jesus was nothing more then an empty example.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I have been told that Jesus was god. If that is true, then the baptism of Jesus was nothing more then an empty example.

Godhead three in one; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. They are all one but at the same time they are different.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Godhead three in one; the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. They are all one but at the same time they are different.

That is just mumbo-jumbo double talk to me.

Nellinator
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus was baptised for Jewish purification rights, Paul combined it with Mithraism. No, it was for the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins... I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. (Mark 1:4 and Mark 1:8)

"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..." (Matthew 3:11)

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33).

Pretty clear really. Since Jesus was sinless, John didn't want to baptise Jesus because he was sinless. And then Jesus's baptism was very different than everyone elses.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us , by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

debbiejo
So baptism is a waste.

Nellinator
No.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by debbiejo
So baptism is a waste.



laughing OMG

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Nellinator
But he was saved before he was 12? I think you might be cracking a joke, but I'm a Christian so I don't understand jokes.

Jesus did not need to be saved, your statement is false.

Nellinator
I never said that he did. I have clearly said that Jesus's baptism was not for the remission of sins before because he was sinless. It was a rhetorical question.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Nellinator
I never said that he did. I have clearly said that Jesus's baptism was not for the remission of sins before because he was sinless. It was a rhetorical question.

My bad.

embarrasment

Nellinator
No problems.

leonheartmm
LMAO, just the amount of conflict between CHRISTIANS on whats what is enough to tell anyone around not to take the relegion seriously.

Nellinator
No, it was one reason that you should take it very seriously.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, it was one reason that you should take it very seriously.

yea, as a potential war for dominance by each faction of a relegion for lunatics. big grin .

or rather, a relegion OF lunacy, followed by deluded average joes and men driven mad by the ideology , alike.

Nellinator
Yah, you really nailed it there... Lolz 'cuz I'm a lunatic right? HARHARHAR!!

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, you really nailed it there... Lolz 'cuz I'm a lunatic right? HARHARHAR!!

i know you prefer deluded average joe more wink . really it is upto you isnt it?

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, you really nailed it there... Lolz 'cuz I'm a lunatic right? HARHARHAR!!



Originally posted by Nellinator
Very true. Buddhism sucks.



Is this what you are reverting to now ? erm

Nellinator
First one because he called me a lunatic in an indirect and cowardly way with such poor grammar that it hurts my brain to read. Hence, he gets a jackass comment in return that acknowledges the stupidity of his comment.

The second one was a joke. Read the conversation please, I didn't think it was that hard to see...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i know you prefer deluded average joe more wink . really it is upto you isnt it? You are very poor at this. You see, it doesn't work, it's false, and really really pointless. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
First one because he called me a lunatic in an indirect and cowardly way with such poor grammar that it hurts my brain to read. Hence, he gets a jackass comment in return that acknowledges the stupidity of his comment.

The second one was a joke. Read the conversation please, I didn't think it was that hard to see...

You are very poor at this. You see, it doesn't work, it's false, and really really pointless. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

nope, i SPECIFICALLY, stated in the post that its "RATHER" A RELEGION OF LUNACY. followed by DELUDED AVERAGE JOES{I.E "YOU"}, AND PEOPLE DRIVEN MAD BY IT{I.E "JIA"}. the second sentence was there exactly for YOU. i dont have to be cowardly in calling any1 a lunatic if i feal like it, your not in my oppinion, the relegion on the other hand most definately IS.

and please, dont refer to your porno as my sleeping pill stick out tongue . capice.
peace out.

Nellinator
You have a poor definition of "average joes" because that usually refers to high school educated blue collar workers. Which simply doesn't apply to millions of Christians including me. Therefore, it is erroneous.

And your "sleeping pill" is you feeling better about yourself trying to justify your lack of belief in God with erroneous attacks. I can accept that you don't believe, but falicious attacks are boring and annoying.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
You have a poor definition of "average joes" because that usually refers to high school educated blue collar workers. Which simply doesn't apply to millions of Christians including me. Therefore, it is erroneous.

And your "sleeping pill" is you feeling better about yourself trying to justify your lack of belief in God with erroneous attacks. I can accept that you don't believe, but falicious attacks are boring and annoying.

nope, it was just a VAGUE, non literal definition referring to the average man. now you might be above or below average, but in this context, average was supposed to linguistically contrast the MAD and LUNATIC, so its a compliment, and attesting to the fact that many followers are normal people lead astray as opposed to being posessed of LUNACY, like their relegion posesses. GET IT. it isnt erronous, you just need to be abit more flexible with your understanding.

um, how would JUSTIFYING my lack of belief make me feal BETTER about myself????????? thayt would only be true if i felt guilty for my lack of belief, guess what, i DONT. i just feal bad for the world which is being poisoned by this thing you call FAITH{which is anything but the literal definition of the word}. the attacks are not erronous, and thas a lil rich, as the case for relegion has always been undermined by lack of logic on these threads/forums in so long as i have been here. the attacks only seem fallacious to you because your "faith" is clouding your judgement and wont allow anything contrary to it be truly registered by your brain.

Nellinator
No, the attacks are repeatedly debunked, recycled, and debunked again. Like the whole parallelomania thing. It's stupid and been proven wrong by many people all over the world and yet it get recycled over and over. I'm rather flexible and my faith doesn't cloud anything. There simply isn't any credible attacks on the Bible that work. If they were that credible Christianity would have collapsed a long time ago and been replaced with some other religion. It hasn't for a reason. The case for religion isn't undermined by a lack of logic, but by the lack of understanding and knowledge of many people that follow it. There are millions of intelligent and logical Christians. Christianity does not support or create lunacy. That is an erroneous attack. Calling faith a poison is really really stupid because it is erroneous.

Why whole point about you sleeping better night is that you attack Christianity without a clear purpose? If you simply don't believe you won't attack it. The only acceptable attacks are when people see something based on a religion influencing non-believers. That's a legitimate attack, even if I disagree with the person on the issue. Attacking it a "why be Christian because look at all the contradictions lolz" way is stupidity and usually based in insecurity and/or superiority complexes. Both are issues with that person.

Adam_PoE
Speaking of erroneous conclusions:

Originally posted by Nellinator
There simply isn't any credible attacks on the Bible that work. If they were that credible Christianity would have collapsed a long time ago and been replaced with some other religion. It hasn't for a reason.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by leonheartmm
why was jesus baptised by john the baptist{as many christion sects believe}?????
baptism is a way {according to most christians} to purge onesself from the ORIGINAL SIN of adam/eve that all men inherit.

yet the main REASON, why CHRIST is called the savious etc, is because "HE WAS THE ONLY ONE BORN SINLESS"!!!!!!!!! if he was born with sin, then he wouldnt be qualified {by christianity's standards} to be the saviour!

so how come a man supposedly born COMPLETELY sinless, inherit the original sin and had to be BAPTISED to clean away that sin. in my oppinion, a total contradiction.

Though Jesus was the son of god, he was still man.Everything he did in his life was that of setting an example. Being baptised, set an example for his fellow man to follow. I cant remember, did Jesus get baptised after he met the devil or before?

Boris
During, it was Satan who gave him his special "water", which Jesus drank from and bathed in. Despite it being sticky, Jesus loved that water.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, the attacks are repeatedly debunked, recycled, and debunked again. Like the whole parallelomania thing. It's stupid and been proven wrong by many people all over the world and yet it get recycled over and over. I'm rather flexible and my faith doesn't cloud anything. There simply isn't any credible attacks on the Bible that work. If they were that credible Christianity would have collapsed a long time ago and been replaced with some other religion. It hasn't for a reason. The case for religion isn't undermined by a lack of logic, but by the lack of understanding and knowledge of many people that follow it. There are millions of intelligent and logical Christians. Christianity does not support or create lunacy. That is an erroneous attack. Calling faith a poison is really really stupid because it is erroneous.

Why whole point about you sleeping better night is that you attack Christianity without a clear purpose? If you simply don't believe you won't attack it. The only acceptable attacks are when people see something based on a religion influencing non-believers. That's a legitimate attack, even if I disagree with the person on the issue. Attacking it a "why be Christian because look at all the contradictions lolz" way is stupidity and usually based in insecurity and/or superiority complexes. Both are issues with that person.

r u in the right frame of mind my friend? confused confused
everytime in these forums, christiany is brought up to be illogical, christians try to argue logically. the arguemtn collapses in on itself, every time, christiany is founfd to be positively self contradictory and illogical. no debunking. the old relegious arguments are recycled by believers, but again collapse. really as i said before, your faith is deluding you. almost all attacks on the bible are credible, given that it gives room for most attacks.

and really by your arguement, the only way we can prove that christiany is true is because even after ages of these attacks, it hasnt TOPPLED. going by that logic, all OTHER "WRONG" relegions like islam/buddhism/hinduism/zoarastrianism/judasim{all of which other than islam are older than christianty} who have received equal attacks SHUD have toppled. shud i then take that as evidence of their truthfulness too! absolutely illogical, chritianity has survived on dogma just like the other relegions just like war has survived on frustration even when almost any logical person can easily argue{and have argued for millenia} that BOTH are utterly wrong. your argument has no logical ground there im afraid. and if afraid, history is testament to the opposite, in the vast majority of people in history, christianty has created strife, war, fear, conformity, intolerance, superstition, and suffering. not to mention stagnation of progress, intellectual, moral, scientific and social. christianity does promote lunacy, stupidity{the relegion not the people, read before coming at my throat} and fear, of illogical things.

i havent attacked it without a clear purpose. i know its an evil design. and i wont sit around when its trying to be sumthing its not to appeal to newer masses{again the RELEGION not the poeple necessarily big grin }, and further propogates stupid and detrimental ideas. i wudnt attack when all harm in the ideology is gone, since thatll never happen with christianity, u cant expect me to just agree or have no comment on a forum on it when christians discuss it. and i think ur again deluding urself by trying to blame it on "people's pathetic insecurities to attack relegion" when by its very nature, your relegion caters utterly to your own insecurites in the most vile of ways. i dont see non believers as being part of me and believers as sumthing seperate who i shudnt bother, evry1 is human, and christianty is detrimental for evey1, furthermore, the PERSISTANCE, of the ideology is even more detrimental to the innocent children of christians on whom these evil views are forced upon, so really, i have all the reason in the world to attack christianty. its a vile relegion for the most part{and those being the ones which are most significant cause they cater the most to believer's insecurities}

Nellinator
I'll just wait on an example of a proven contradiction where the Christian apologetic collapsed and was proven false.

I got lost in the rest of it, in its grammatical nightmare. So, when I see the above we shall continue.

the Darkone
Originally posted by Nellinator
Very true. Buddhism sucks.


You took the words right out of my mouth thumb up.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
I'll just wait on an example of a proven contradiction where the Christian apologetic collapsed and was proven false.

I got lost in the rest of it in its grammatical nightmare. So, when I see the above we shall continue.


indeed, because grammer is SOO much scarier than demons and satan. i can accept the existance of the later but no way will i even try to look at the former. u sure it isnt just inability to adequately reply. or do u honestly have dislexia??????

Nellinator
I could read through it all, but it taxing and boring. There is nothing really to respond. You think religion promotes lunacy and a bunch of other bad crap and I disagree. There is no argument there. That's just the way of it.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Nellinator
I could read through it all, but it taxing and boring. There is nothing really to respond. You think religion promotes lunacy and a bunch of other bad crap and I disagree. There is no argument there. That's just the way of it.

suppose i can agree to that. just one correction though, i dont believe RELEGION does that, i believe christianity/judaism/hinduism/islam does it. and theres no argument there cause the arguments have been made and argued to death and reasonable conclusions rached.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by the Darkone
You took the words right out of my mouth thumb up.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/sock.jpg

the Darkone
Jesus baptism was a symbolic gesture, to show that he is one with the father, as we are baptize are one with are, lord Jesus. Do you need to be baptize to be saved? no. But is a symbolic gesture, as long you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, you are saved.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Boris
During, it was Satan who gave him his special "water", which Jesus drank from and bathed in. Despite it being sticky, Jesus loved that water.

Oh...your an ass hole. I get it laughing laughing out loud

Boris
I don't get it.

You make feel bad, I'm gonna baptise myself to make me feel good.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
OMG...that reminds of of another question..which I will raise in another thread... Here's another one: Why was Mary baptised?

debbiejo
Was she? I don't remember reading it... confused

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, it was for the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins... I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. (Mark 1:4 and Mark 1:8)

"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..." (Matthew 3:11)

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33).

Pretty clear really. Since Jesus was sinless, John didn't want to baptise Jesus because he was sinless. And then Jesus's baptism was very different than everyone elses.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us , by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

But water baptism does not remit sin. Without the shedding of blood (i.e. the sinless sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus Christ) there is no remission (i.e. of sin).



Hebrews 9:22
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

debbiejo
Originally taken from Mithra. They're waiting for him to return too.

FeceMan
Originally posted by debbiejo
Originally taken from Mithra. They're waiting for him to return too.
Actually, taken from the OT, but it was a good try.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
Actually, taken from the OT, but it was a good try.

You failed and missed her point.

debbiejo
Waits for Mithra. He died for my sins, ya know?

Nellinator
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But water baptism does not remit sin. Without the shedding of blood (i.e. the sinless sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus Christ) there is no remission (i.e. of sin).



Hebrews 9:22
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. I know.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Waits for Mithra. He died for my sins, ya know? No he didn't. Let me guess? You read something by Acharya? If so, you should try to forget everything you read.

First, off, Mithra is never recorded as dying. Therefore, this argument is already pwnd. Second:

This description is rather spun out into a sound-alike of Christian belief, but behind the vagueness lies a different story. Mithra did not "sacrifice himself" in the sense that he died; he was not the "great bull of the Sun", but rather, he killed the bull (attempts to somehow identify Mithra with the very bull he slayed, although popular with outdated non-Mithraists like Loisy and Bunsen, were rejected by Vermaseren, who said that "neither the temples nor the inscriptions give any definite evidence to support this view and only future finds can confirm it" ; it was not for the sake of "world peace" (except, perhaps, in the sense that Cumont interpreted the bull-slaying as a creation myth , in which he was entirely wrong). Mithra could only be said to have "sacrificed himself" in the sense that he went out and took a risk to do a heroic deed; the rest finds no justification at all in modern Mithraic studies.

You have very poor sources.

Alliance
Actually, Caesar is the true god, he moves the world right here and now.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.