Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/8/2005 5:31:08 AM EDT

Ever been told Jesus never baptized anyone? Turns out its not true.

    John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.



Shok
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:45:36 AM EDT
what's the other myths?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:53:08 AM EDT

I heard once that Jesus never spoke out on sexual immorality. That was a hoot. Oh yeah and a day isn't actually a day in the bible either.

Kind of bothers me that I believed that Jesus never baptized.

Shok
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:55:11 AM EDT
Yeah, it's been keeping me awake nights, too.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:42:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
Ever been told Jesus never baptized anyone? Turns out its not true.

    John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.



Shok




Actually, it helps to continue reading. In John 4:1,2 we see:

"The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples" (The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984)

Therefore, we see that Jesus did not baptize. His authorized representatives did in His stead.

viator
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:54:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By viator:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Ever been told Jesus never baptized anyone? Turns out its not true.

    John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.



Shok




Actually, it helps to continue reading. In John 4:1,2 we see:

"The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples" (The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984)

Therefore, we see that Jesus did not baptize. His authorized representatives did in His stead.

viator




Hmm, KJV says the same thing.

Thanks!

Shok
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 11:55:15 AM EDT

Looks like Jesus baptized in Judea, then had the disciples take over the duty later. Otherwise the Bible would be in error.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 12:44:42 PM EDT
Rodent,

You are pretty funny most of the time... but do you HAVE TO DO IT HERE?

I know that the more serious stuff is the greater the desire to poke it with a stick... but just cut it out in here.

Go back to GenDisc where it is appreciated.

Dram
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:08:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Looks like Jesus baptized in Judea, then had the disciples take over the duty later. Otherwise the Bible would be in error.



Not exactly. It doesn't have to be explained in that manner to avoid error.

They are still in Judea in verses 1 and 2 of chapter 4. They don't leave until verse 3. So all of this discussion covers that which was done in Judea.

Think of the discussion of the rescue efforts in New Orleans. An article might say that Bush did this or didn’t do that. Because he is in authority and authorized the action, he gets credit (or blame) for what is done.

To say that Jesus baptized in chapter 3, and then to clarify in chapter 4 that not He, but His disciples actually did the baptizing, is not in error. The disciples baptized for Jesus, under His authority, so He gets credit for it. In baptism, Jesus acts through the one who baptizes for Him in His stead.

viator
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:18:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By viator:

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Looks like Jesus baptized in Judea, then had the disciples take over the duty later. Otherwise the Bible would be in error.



Not exactly. It doesn't have to be explained in that manner to avoid error.

They are still in Judea in verses 1 and 2 of chapter 4. They don't leave until verse 3. So all of this discussion covers that which was done in Judea.

Think of the discussion of the rescue efforts in New Orleans. An article might say that Bush did this or didn’t do that. Because he is in authority and authorized the action, he gets credit (or blame) for what is done.

To say that Jesus baptized in chapter 3, and then to clarify in chapter 4 that not He, but His disciples actually did the baptizing, is not in error. The disciples baptized for Jesus, under His authority, so He gets credit for it. In baptism, Jesus acts through the one who baptizes for Him in His stead.

viator




Exactly what I was gonna say.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:40:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:47:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Rodent,

You are pretty funny most of the time... but do you HAVE TO DO IT HERE?

I know that the more serious stuff is the greater the desire to poke it with a stick... but just cut it out in here.

Go back to GenDisc where it is appreciated.

Dram



Well, it's not really appreciated there either.

How 'bout we get him a room in the Pit with FOX.


BTW, I did not know Jesus babtized either.

So, is a day a day?
TXL
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 3:49:48 PM EDT
Well,

I do like Rodent.

I respect him for his service to our country very much.

I like his attitude, he is plenty uppity and out to cause a bit of mayhem, but what else are you gonna' get from a Marine fighter jock?



He is pretty funny, but he just has to cut it out in here.

In my opinion.


But, again, that is just my opinion and worth what'cha paid for it

Dram out
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 6:46:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 7:44:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 3:33:37 AM EDT by Rodent]

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:

Rodent... I think you would be better off not posting in this forum anymore. Or at least stop posting until you are going to contribute to the discussions going on.




I mostly try to avoid your forum. If a subject comes up in Active Topics that piques my curiosity, I sometimes make a post. Most of them should be serious enough for you, if you apply your "serious requirement" consistantly. I just clicked on another thread and here's the first example I came to:

"It's been very thoroughly established that the universe did start with an explosion. It's still expanding, the youngest galaxies are at the center, the background radiation from the explosion can still be detected, etc. Cosmologists are very close to a "unified theory" that finally "connects the dots" of all the Einsteins out there, and we might hear it in our lifetime.

What caused the Big Bang? Maybe it was a god, or gods. It's unknowable at this point."


It's not the same point of view that you have, but it would be difficult to argue that it isn't a positive contribution or that it violates the CoC.

Sometimes I make a point with a touch of humor. On rare occasions, I even crack a mild joke. So do plenty of others, including site staff. Are they being told not to post here? Just curious. In any case, I'll avoid your forum more.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 6:58:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By viator:

To say that Jesus baptized in chapter 3, and then to clarify in chapter 4 that not He, but His disciples actually did the baptizing, is not in error. The disciples baptized for Jesus, under His authority, so He gets credit for it. In baptism, Jesus acts through the one who baptizes for Him in His stead.

viator




One would think that the clarification would have taken place at the first instance. Since it is in parenthesis it is not found in the original Greek Text?

Shok
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 10:27:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By viator:

To say that Jesus baptized in chapter 3, and then to clarify in chapter 4 that not He, but His disciples actually did the baptizing, is not in error. The disciples baptized for Jesus, under His authority, so He gets credit for it. In baptism, Jesus acts through the one who baptizes for Him in His stead.

viator




One would think that the clarification would have taken place at the first instance. Since it is in parenthesis it is not found in the original Greek Text?

Shok




I translated this passage in question from John 3 & 4 from the Greek text [The Greek New Testament, (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart) 1983] before I answered.

One problem with reading English versions is that one easily develops a myopic focus on individual verses at the expense of the whole.

The original Gospel as written in Greek had no chapter or verse divisions. So, one could easily follow the flow of thought throughout a Gospel- or any other book of the Bible, for that matter. Chapters were added later for reference purposes. If you read any of the writings of the original Reformers (theologians at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century) you will discover that they NEVER quote a passage from Scripture by referring to the number of a verse. That is because verses were added later for increased precision if reference. The problem is that a layman divided the Bible into verses and put some breaks in utterly atrocious places. Chapter divisions are also not entirely helpful in many instances.

If one keeps in mind the fact that even chapter divisions are arbitrary, that which occurs in 4:1-3 can be seen in a much more intimate connection with chapter 3:22 ff.

So, I am not surprised at all that a clarification of 3:22 would be found in such close proximity in 4:1-3.



In Greek, John 4:1-3 form one period, or as you might be more familiar, one sentence. The point is that these three verses comprise one thought in Greek.

Here is my suggested translation:

Then, since Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John – indeed, Jesus Himself did not baptize, but quite to the contrary, His disciples [baptized] – He left Judea and went again into Galilee.


I think that this translation helps to see the clarification that the Holy Spirit intended.

FWIW,

viator
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:10:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MRW:
I fail to see the significance of either position



so what?



A valid question. Whether or not Jesus baptised anyone, he certainly taught that it was necessary. The Apostles certainly had authority to baptise. John the Baptist certainly had authority to baptise (he was the son of a high priest of the Temple, and therefore a levite by birth).

What difference does it make if a person was baptised by Jesus or one of his authorized servants?
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 2:26:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
Looks like Jesus baptized in Judea, then had the disciples take over the duty later. Otherwise the Bible would be in error.



+1 Just my opinion.
Top Top