1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) ...
Take your pick ... he did, then he didn't
I used to read the New Testament a lot. I think you will find that although there are a number of stories about Jesus calling his disciples, it is nowhere said that he or anybody else baptised them.
Why not start from there, and work out what the implications might be, rather than reading back present day Christian assumptions and saying "Well, since somebody must have baptised them, it must have been John. Or Jesus."?
Maybe it doesn't boil down to whether Jesus baptized or not, but rather the nature of the baptism.
John himself has an interesting point to make regarding the matter:
Matthew 3:11 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:
Chap wrote:But my point is this: since there appears to be no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus or anyone else baptised the disciples, why not consider the possibility that neither he nor they considered it necessary for them to be baptised before you interpret the record on the basis of a Christian belief about what 'must' have happened?
Let's start with the Old World Ones, perhaps.
I'm assuming the Apostles possessed basic intelligence and that when Jesus told them to go forth and baptize everyone unto him that they could figure out at that point (if not before) that this would logically include them.
The Book of Mormon does not describe the baptisms done in the Old World. I am not surprised by this.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
AlmaBound wrote:Maybe it doesn't boil down to whether Jesus baptized or not, but rather the nature of the baptism.
John himself has an interesting point to make regarding the matter:
Matthew 3:11 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:
This is certainly consistent with the person who wrote Matthew 3:11 knowing of an account of Jesus in which he did not baptize anyone with water, I agree.
The Nehor wrote: I'm assuming the Apostles possessed basic intelligence and that when Jesus told them to go forth and baptize everyone unto him that they could figure out at that point (if not before) that this would logically include them.
So they baptized themselves?
It worked for Alma, I suppose. Though the whole "fire" bit doesn't seem to be in play there.
Chap wrote:This is certainly consistent with the person who wrote Matthew 3:11 knowing of an account of Jesus in which he did not baptize anyone with water, I agree.
This, of course, still remains to be reconciled with Philip in Acts 8.
The Nehor wrote: I'm assuming the Apostles possessed basic intelligence and that when Jesus told them to go forth and baptize everyone unto him that they could figure out at that point (if not before) that this would logically include them.
So they baptized themselves?
It worked for Alma, I suppose. Though the whole "fire" bit doesn't seem to be in play there.
They could baptize each other if they needed to.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote: They could baptize each other if they needed to.
If they needed to? Sure, they could get each other wet if they needed to, but that doesn't really account for the baptism of fire that John said would come from another.
The Nehor wrote: They could baptize each other if they needed to.
If they needed to? Sure, they could get each other wet if they needed to, but that doesn't really account for the baptism of fire that John said would come from another.
No it doesn't. Having had both I can say there is a distinct difference.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
It appears that baptism was as essential to Jesus' apostles as plural marriage was.
These pesky ordinances keep getting tangled up!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.