That was the whole point of baptism, JT. It served no other purpose. It wa a ritual cleansing.
What I find interestign is that Jesus was considered untainted by sin becasue he didn’t have a phsyical father.
Sin is supposedly transmitted through Adam, and all fathers.
So…that would mean only men are tainted with original sin.
Of course, women aren’t then, if you follow this line of reasoning.
Interesting.
re: Vanilla’s post
Which is how some people explain the whole virgin birth thingy as being valid. Especially since the angel told Mary that God’s spirit would overshadow her.
So, the two together makes the sinless nature of the Chist Child valid, in some Christian’s opinions.
Of course, that may not be how the mainstream chuches explain it, I haven’t asked them in a long time…
It doesn’t say his baptism was to wash away sin. That is what baptism was for. Jesus told John to baptize him because “it is proper for us to do this to fulfil all righteousness”. I can’t say that I believe or don’t believe he sinned and don’t believe it’s as important as we think. I actually kind of hope he had a good time while he was here. What I do know is we only have part of the history wrote back then and if something doesn’t say something happened, it doesn’t always follow that it didn’t.
DtC, Your statement about the banana was horrible and as soon as I get done hysterically laughing, I’m going to be righteously indignant. Is nothing sacred to you? Wait, that won’t work. Bad DtC, bad boy.
and makes women less sinful than men!
Which doesn’t mean that it was done to wash away Christ’s sins. It was an act of obedience, and thus, fulfilled all righteousness in that manner.
So try again. WHERE does the Bible say that Christ’s baptism was done to wash away his sin? Where does it say that ANY baptism literally washes away one’s sins?
Again, cite? Where does the Bible say that this was indeed “the whole point of baptism”? I’d like you to provide a specific and unambiguous citation, proving that this was indeed its entire purpose.
Moreover, if it was a ritual cleansing, as you yourself admitted, then it does not literally wash away sin. Hence, even if you were correct (which you are not), it still would not conclusively prove that Jesus was indeed a sinner.
What Peter said about baptism:
Might help the discussion.
Third verse down.
"I baptize you with[2] water for repentance. Mark 3:11
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. Mark 1:5
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.Acts 2:38
I did not say that this was why Jesus was baptized. I don’t know and don’t pretend to know or need to know. I wasn’t there. And I’m not sure it specifically says. If it does, why don’t you show us?
What’s relevant here is not Christian baptism but what baptism meant to ancient Jews. In ancient Judaism, it was all about ritual purity.
Jewish bakground of Christain baptism
Forgot to pull up the relevant quote:
Better read the passage more carefully, NoClueBoy, and in its context. This verse talks about being saved from a bad conscience, and not from the penalty of sin.
In fact, the very first translation which you cited was from The Amplified Bible. As you yourself quoted, it says,
In other words, the words you quoted do not support your claim. If anything, they refute it.
There is a tendency to inject modern jargon into one’s readings of the Bible, even when it is unwarranted. This is one such example. People speak of being “saved” so often that they naturally interpret the word in this solitary manner, without any regard for the context.
In which case, your claim is irrelevant. But let’s examine it anyway.
[QUOTE]
**Third verse down.
"I baptize you with[2] water for repentance. Mark 3:11
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. Mark 1:5
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.Acts 2:38
Still not good enough. For one thing, there are many other passages which reject earthly works as a basis for salvation (Romans 4:1-17, 11:6; Gal 3:8-9; Eph 2:8-9 and more), which suggests that one should not be hasty in adopting your interpretation.
Second, there is direct textual evidence which shows that the phrase “and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ” is meant to be parenthetical. The verb “repent” and the pronoun “your” are both rendered in the plural, whereas the verb “be baptized” is singular. This suggests that the reference to baptism is parenthetical, that is, equivalent to saying “Oh, and while we’re on the topic, be baptized, all of you!” Given the greater context of Peter’s teachings (see Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38 and 26:18), this makes more sense than the more obvious but overly simplistic rendering which you espoused.
Don’t lecture me, JT!
All I did was provide a Biblical cite, with no commentary. What claim did I make in that post?
Look it up yourself and see. I added nothing to any of the quotes.
What claim? You asked where it said baptism was for sin. I gave you a few choices. For the record again, I believe in God. I just have a problem relying to any great extent on a book that has been translated how many times and revised, how many times? For inspiration yes, for literality, no way.
I don’t have an interpretation. I’m not sure what this has to do with the original topic. I understand what these verses are saying, but not why you’re quoting them?
I answered a direct question with a verse quote and now I’m espousing an overly simplistic rendering. Hey, you aren’t trying to witness to me are you? :eek:
My claim, if claim it be, was that Jesus could have been so completely Human as to sin in his childhood, but yet become sinless after the Baptism of John washed away his sins.
I really don’t care for literal biblical interpretation, but come from the general idea that I have seen and heard that makes Baptism (or any other religious form of washing, in Islam, Hinduism,…) as a method by which sins (or bad acts…) are washed away from the person baptised so that they can be clean for future spiritual activity.
Okay, I’ll grant that technically, you didn’t make any direct claim in that post. However, the clear and obvious implication was that baptism was itself the vehicle for salvation; otherwise, why cite this specific passage?
At any rate, the Amplified Version expands on the subtleties in the text, and it clearly shows that this passage has nothing to do with salvation from the penalty of sin. It is therefore not relevant to the issue at hand.
Again, same issue. Your statement was given in direct response to the question “Where does the Bible say that baptism is the literal washing away of sin?” While there is no explicit claim made, the implication is obvious; otherwise, why cite these passages, and why reply at all?
Well, golly. Why don’t you tell us?
How many intermediate translations did the Old Testament go through, in translating from the Hebrew to. say, the NIV or NKJV versions? (Hint: Less than one.) How many intermediate translations were used in deriving the New Testament translations? (Hint: Less than one.) And how many times has the Bible been revised, since you obviously believe this was a repeated occurrence?
Which, as I’m repeatedly forced to point out, assumes that baptism does literally wash away one’s sins. So far, there has been no support for that claim.
Slightly less famous than the question “what does ‘is’ mean” is the question “what does ‘all’ & ‘no one’ mean”? All bolding mine.
Romans 3:10-12
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
And on a bit to Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
I fail to see where the exception is made for Jesus. “All” means “all”. “No one” means “no one”. “Not even one” is pretty clear. In fact, Jesus is mentioned throughout Romans 3 but never presented as the exception to any rule.
Or do you contend that there are alternative, non-literal meanings here?