Jesus baptism

Not open for further replies.
My prophesy; once John the baptist entered the water he did baptize himself and all the baptizees likewise including Jesus, that is the domain of water they are in is ruled out as baptismal water, and so John must create a new domain of baptismal water with handful or jug of water to be sprinkled or poured. Here is the absurdity of Baptists, the baptizee has dipped in the water, the command unto the Baptizor to do the dipping is thus disobeyed; that is one cannot be dipped in water they already in. Once your foot is dipped in the water, the Baptizor cannot dip you again until you leave the water (and likewise the Baptizor cannot enter the water!). In other words, the Baptist Baptizor to correctly baptize by immersion (dipping) must grab the baptizee under the armpits (or by the legs) and wholesale dip that person in water whilst they are out of water like a spoon in soup; not pragmatic. Pouring is a form of dipping because the area poured upon is in the water (under the water), that is, if myself pours water on a spot on my hand, that domain on my hand is under the water whilst the water is poured, the same as if myself put my hand under a body of water. Hence immersipn is dipping, or dipping by pouring and not submersion which is congruent in some sense to drowning (the Baptism of Pharoah so to speak).

Well, that’s quite an interesting, if rather novel and incoherent prophesy (or perhaps you meant hypothesis..?). Anyway, the main problem with your apparent claim is that it’s simply in complete defiance of the normal usage and comprehension of language. It does sort of remind me, though, of James Dale’s triumphal assertion that a self-dipping is an impossibility... And, alas, I must regretfully inform you that your meager jingle, “grab the baptizee under the armpits or by the legs,” is totally eclipsed by this catchy little ditty by Leonard Parker, a Methodist minister from Senecaville, OH:

Some persons there are who make the assertion,​
Immersion is baptism, and baptism immersion.​
Yet the Preacher will not the baptism begin,​
Till one half of the subject is already in;​
To all close observers this fact is well known,​
One half is immersed by an act of his own!​
So that half of the subject, without any doubt,​
They never put in, or ever take out!​
The part that is under the water, we know,​
With that part the Preacher has nothing to do;​
This being a fact, why make the assertion,​
That baptism consists in an entire immersion?​
If the Preacher himself does not immerse all,​
Why does he his action a baptism call,​
When he dips only half? To me it seems droll,​
That he thinks this is equal to dipping the whole!​
Yet the Preacher immerses but half at the best,​
As the subject most surely immerses the rest!​

Perhaps someone can put that to music, you know, kind of like Arius did, 1681682271980.png ...῏ην ὅτε οὐκ ῏ην ὁ ὑιός 1681683186480.png

But, returning to the world of commonsense and sobriety, such notions can only be consigned to the realm of semantic sophistry. With all due respect, brother, I don’t think the absurdity you claim here is on the part of the Baptists! :)
Last edited:
I thought it may have helped address what you were saying in the following comment.

Obviously, one of the main points of 1 Pet. 3:20-21 is that the mere external rite of water baptism is not what saves a person, rather, an internal, Spirit-wrought work of conscience/faith is the catalyst necessary for making the sign efficacious (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5). The flood/ark is an “antitype” of baptism, meaning there is some figure or resemblance between those things and sacramental baptism. Virtually all commentators see the resemblance both in terms of the element involved (water) and the result (salvation). On the other hand, mode is apparently not in view within the metaphor of vv.20-21a, as passing over the water, as you put it, does not sensibly resemble immersion, pouring or sprinkling.

Insofar as there is an allusion to mode in v.21b, apostolic baptism evidently involved a physical action that, in its mere profane usage, Peter’s audience would have perceived as capable of removing/washing filth/dirt from the body. Of the three modal possibilities, this would arguably favor bathing/immersion, and practically exclude sprinkling or nominal pouring.
Self dipping is possible and that is the point, namely not dip oneself but the Baptizor. Hence, it contradicts the Lords command to baptize the baptizee by the baptizor and not the baptizee by the baptizee. Its impossible to twice enter the BaptismalWater if that is truth in a truth
If myself dips a spoon in a bowl of milk, to dip it again the spoon must be removed if that is truth in a truth. How is that not clear of the Baptizee?
Not open for further replies.