Why did a man free of sin need to be baptized?

>>17828539 (OP)
Submission to the spirit is how you demonstrate your understanding about your role in salvation. At least it did... I personally miss when we used to forcibly baptize people to make them acknowledge that God's will is executed through his people that are the dwelling place of the spirit.

>>17828539 (OP) Read the Bible. It is explained there.

>>17828578
>Read the Bible. It is explained there.
Which verse?

St. Ambrose said "The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed Himself, but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, purified by the flesh of Christ, which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism.” St. John Chrysostom said "He did not need baptism... but He accepted it to give us an example of humility and to fulfill all righteousness.”

It was to establish water as the medium between us and Him.

John the Baptist is such an amazing man
Last prophet of the old covenant and first of the new

>>17828618
>Last prophet of the old covenant and first of the new
He only taught the old covenant.

>>17828616
>St. Ambrose said "The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed Himself, but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, purified by the flesh of Christ, which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism.” St. John Chrysostom said "He did not need baptism... but He accepted it to give us an example of humility and to fulfill all righteousness.”
Sounds like catholic fanfiction to me.

>>17828539 (OP)
Jesus became Christ, the Son of God at his baptism.
> Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”.
(As preserved in the Codex Bezae and quoted by St. Augustine)

>>17828539 (OP)
Where does it ever say he is sinless?
He himself basically admits he is not when he says that a certain stone can only be cast by a sinless man and then he fails to cast it himself.

>>17829205
>today I have begotten you
I had to look into this to see if you were making it up. This does appear to be the original verse. Really amazing.

>>17829259
I thought the point of that was story that Jesus COULD cast the first stone
but He didn't
which I think is more powerful

>>17829616
Anyone in the crowd was physically capable of throwing the stone, he just shamed them into letting the sinner free while showing he was did not let himself do what only a sinless man could be let to do, the fact that they didn't means they all can't now that the situation is over unless you are saying jesus can go back in time or manage a multiverse where he does.

>>17829626
what?

>>17829630
SORRY BOOMER, ANYONE IN THE CROWD WAS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF THROWING THE STONE, HE JUST SHAMED THEM INTO LETTING THE SINNER FREE WHILE SHOWING HE WAS DID NOT LET HIMSELF DO WHAT ONLY A SINLESS MAN COULD BE LET TO DO, THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T MEANS THEY ALL CAN'T NOW THAT THE SITUATION IS OVER UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING JESUS CAN GO BACK IN TIME OR MANAGE A MULTIVERSE WHERE HE DOES.

>>17829634
Christ can, but so can those wicked powers and principalities.

>>17828578
You can't interpret the bible by yourself you need the church for that.

>>17828539 (OP)
I think ot has something to do with the epicurean paradox and free will. When John baptizes Jesus, God is perhaps allowing our contradicting choices to wash over him in some way, so that all righteousness can be fulfilled. Some sort of compromise or change is happening here between humanity, and the divine. This is when the holy spirit descends upon Jesus, so this seems to be the chiasm of Jesus's duel nature as both human and divine.

>>17828539 (OP)
What super powers did John have that allowed him to baptize God himself? What did the baptism actually do? I will entertain all adoptionist and other heterodox interpretations, I just would like to know

Jesus, being sinless, did not require baptism for remission of sin. Instead, his baptism by John fulfilled righteousness, instituted the sacrament, and revealed His divine identity.

>>17829441
I read the analogy that Christ is like the rod iron that transmits the "heat" of the Father if that makes sense

>>17830799
>What super powers did John have
Free will
>What did the baptism actually do?
Created something random for God to align.

Obviously the tradition is older than the high Christologies. The question is, how old is it?
I used to think that this must be an authentic tradition, because it makes no sense for proto-orthodox Christians to make it up, appearing as it does to subordinate Jesus to John despite the "forerunner" and Elijah vs. Messiah framing.
But who is to say a Jewish Christian wouldn't presume or desire to intimate a connection between John and Jesus? The resemblance of the Gospel Jesus to Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus has been pointed out by many, and a clear rhetorical purpose is served by the parallelism. The same motivations that compelled Romans to imagine, and then later believe, that Paul was a peer of Seneca might have motivated Jewish Christians to connect Jesus and John.

>>17828539 (OP)
>>17828616
>>17829259
>>17829616
He had sin but wasn't a sinner because of Adam and Eve, remember? Jesus was physically born from Mary and Mary had original sin. That's what baptism removed. I'm absolutely at a loss as to why those church fathers didn't believe in original sin.

>>17831751
John was himself a prophet of dangerous popularity. The authorities had him killed and people more or less spelled out -- the next one is going to be a big deal, no matter what you do to him. Biggest FAFO moment in history with regard to Christ's name being plastered over the entire world, states made to kneel, and Jews into a midget little brother.

>>17831773
Mary explicitly DID NOT have original sin, have you ever heard of the "immaculate conception" and mistakenly believed it referred to the virgin birth?

>>17831802
I see, it's pure metaphysics. The only reason she's without sin is because she needs to be for Jesus to be without sin, and Jesus needs to be without sin for God to be without sin.

>>17831802
Every apostolic church but the one in Rome celebrates the day of Mary's death, I'm pretty sure papists are the heretics here.

>>17831802
I'm not surprised catholics keep quiet about this. Wikipedia quotes Ambrose as saying her virginity was due to divine grace. That can be interpreted two ways, neither of them pleasant.

>>17831773
>baptism removed original sin
he was born of the Father, without the original sin. Original sin, being of the spirit from the fall, existing with spirit in the flesh, the only heritable sin, the bloodline of the fall.

>>17831802
>mary did not have have original sin
nonsense, of course she did. she was of the people that required salvation only the Son could provide. She received sufficient grace equal to the task of receiving the Son of God.

>>17832451
If Mary had original sin then Jesus had original sin and God was also exposed to original sin when He touched Mary. Attempts at coherence fail the grug test. Especially if you're debating mohammedists who don't even believe Christ was divine.

>>17833683
You think so because you are not understanding correctly what original sin even is, or you refuse to accept what it really is.

>>17833699
sort of like the immaculate conception then -- it's really embarrassing so true believers keep it close to the chest.