He told his disciples to baptize. That wasn't something they came up with on their own
Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View
- Thread starter LightBearer316
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
He told his disciples to baptize. That wasn't something they came up with on their own
No, he didn't. He commanded his disciples to do only two things: "Go and teach". English Grammar 101. As a result of obeying that command, believing hearers would thereby be baptized by the Holy Spirit.
It's your conditioning that would lead you to assume Jesus meant water baptism.
You’re wasting your time with @ChristRoseFromTheDead he just cycles through his other accounts whenever he needs backup for his unsound theology. It’s the same pattern every time.
If that be so, then we are commanded to pray for the man. Also, there are others viewing this thread, and we must remain in the truth for them, as well.
I thank God that I have been released from the karmic "rinse and repeat" cycle of the Jewish ritual of water baptism.
Thanks for the heads-up.
I wasn't referring to the verse you referred to. I was referring to this, which doesn't fit with your attempt to spiritualize everything.
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples did. John 4:1-2
That connection simply isn’t in the text! Jesus wasn’t baptized to “enter God’s house like a Levitical priest.” Scripture gives His reason directly: “To fulfil all righteousness.” — Matthew 3:15 (KJV)
If your interpretation were correct, John would have been functioning as a Levitical priest and Jesus would have been entering the tabernacle system—yet:
John was not a Levitical priest.
Jesus was already sinless, perfectly righteous, and already “about His Father’s business” long before His baptism (Luke 2:49).
Jesus’ baptism happened in the Jordan, not at the door of the tabernacle.
And Exodus 29:4 KJV has nothing to do with Christian baptism or Jesus’ baptism. It is a ceremonial cleansing ritual tied to the Levitical priesthood—something the New Testament repeatedly tells us has been fulfilled and set aside.
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Hebrews 7:12 (KJV)
“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:4 (KJV)
Trying to map Levitical washing ceremonies onto Jesus’ baptism is reading meaning into the text, not from it.
Jesus’ baptism pointed to:
His identification with sinners (2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV)
The Father’s public affirmation (Matthew 3:17 KJV)
The beginning of His public ministry (Acts 10:37–38 KJV)
None of those have anything to do with priestly washings in Exodus.
So basically:
Jesus was baptized to fulfill righteousness, not to reenact Exodus 29:4 KJV.
Scripture explains His baptism plainly—your typology does not.
Grace and Peace
That’s pure fiction, and it falls apart the moment you open a Bible. Scripture never calls John an Aaronic priest — not once, not in passing, not even indirectly. His father was a priest (Luke 1:5 KJV), but John never served in the temple, never performed priestly sacrifices, never wore priestly garments, and never took part in the Levitical system he’s supposedly “the greatest” of.
John’s entire ministry was:
outside the priesthood
outside the temple
outside Levitical ritual
outside Jerusalem
outside the entire Aaronic structure
That’s why Scripture calls him:
A prophet… and more than a prophet. Matthew 11:9 (KJV)
It does not call him a priest — because he wasn’t one.
So claiming John was “the greatest Aaronic priest that ever lived” isn’t theology; it’s just you inventing things because your argument has no biblical foundation. If the Bible doesn’t say it, you don’t get to insert it.
Grace and peace
God called him into the highest service of serving the true temple of God rather than serving in the earthly temple.
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Matthew 11:11
Jesus' baptism was the antitype of the commisioning of the high priest into service at the door of the tabernacle described in Exodus 29:4-7. So in that regard he fulfilled the righteousness foreshadowed in that ceremony: immersed in water, clothed with garments of righteousness (this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased) and anointed with oil (holy spirit)
That’s a complete shift of the argument — and it doesn’t rescue your claim.
Yes, Jesus said John was the greatest prophet ever born of women (Matt. 11:11 KJV).
But notice what Jesus did NOT say:
He did not call John a priest.
He did not tie John to Aaron.
He did not connect him to Levitical priestly service.
He did not say John held any temple office.
John’s greatness had zero to do with the Aaronic priesthood because he wasn’t part of it.
If anything, John was the opposite of a Levitical priest:
He ministered outside the temple.
He preached repentance, not sacrifices.
He wore camel hair, not priestly garments.
He baptized in the Jordan, not in the tabernacle courts.
He never performed one Levitical duty his entire life.
Jesus praises John as the greatest prophet, not the greatest priest — because John was never a priest in the first place.
Trying to convert John’s greatness into “highest temple service” is pure imagination.
Scripture calls him: A prophet… and more than a prophet.(Matt. 11:9 KJV)
But Scripture never calls him a priest — not by lineage, not by function, not by office.
If the Bible doesn’t say it, you don’t get to rewrite it.
This entire interpretation collapses because it’s built on a method the Bible itself condemns — forcing your own symbolism onto passages that were never connected by God.
Nothing in the Old Testament predicts Christ’s baptism as a reenactment of Exodus 29.
Nothing in the Gospels explains His baptism using Exodus 29.
Nothing in Acts, Hebrews, or any apostolic writing draws that connection.
Nothing in Scripture ever suggests Jesus was reenacting a priestly washing.
Your interpretation doesn’t fail because it’s “different.”
It fails because it directly contradicts how Scripture interprets Scripture.
Here’s what the text actually says:
Jesus gives His own reason for His baptism: “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15 KJV).
John is identified as a prophet, not a priest (Matt. 11:9 KJV).
Jesus’ baptism occurs in the Jordan, not at the “door of the tabernacle.”
Levitical washings were for sinful priests who required purification; the sinless Son of God needed none.
The descent of the Spirit is not the ceremonial oil of Exodus — equating the two is bad theology.
The Aaronic priesthood is explicitly said to be set aside and replaced, not reenacted (Heb. 7:12; Heb. 10:1–9 KJV).
In other words:
You are connecting passages God never connected, to defend a doctrine the Bible never taught, using a typology the apostles never used.
That isn’t biblical interpretation; it’s building theology out of your imagination and then stapling verses to it after the fact.
If the New Testament doesn’t say Jesus’ baptism fulfilled Exodus 29, then claiming it anyway is adding to the word of God.
Grace and Peace
@ChristRoseFromTheDead He is at it again folks!
This was AI-generated
Here’s why, broken down in a way you can point out if needed:
1. The structure is textbook AIThe sentence has the classic AI pattern:
- Bold claim stated as fact
- Colon
- List of parallels in perfect symmetry
- Parenthetical clarifications
- Smooth rhetorical flow
Human writing (especially his) is nowhere near that tidy or formulaic.
2. It uses AI-style theological phrasingPhrases like:
- “fulfilled the righteousness foreshadowed in that ceremony”
- “garments of righteousness” (applied allegorically)
- “antitype of the commissioning of the high priest”
He normally writes choppy, inconsistent, emotional posts.
This one suddenly sounded like a seminary-trained commentary… except the theology is wrong and stitched together.
Classic sign of AI assistance.
3. The parallelism is artificialHe gives three supposed parallels:
- Water (immersed)
- Garments (“this is My beloved Son…”)
- Oil (Holy Spirit)
This is forced typology in a perfect 1-1-1 pattern.
AI loves building clean, symmetrical lists like that.
Humans rarely write theology in neat triplets unless they’re copying notes or using an AI tool.
4. It uses the “antitype” terminology incorrectlyAI often misuses “type/antitype” because it mixes systematic theology terms without understanding them.
Real biblical scholars don’t call Jesus’ baptism the antitype of Exodus 29 — because no biblical writer ever makes that connection.
AI, however, will confidently invent these parallels.
5. The tone is generic, commentary-like, and lacks his usual styleHis real writing style is:
- reactive
- emotional
- repetitive
- disorganized
- prooftext-heavy
- smooth
- structured
- academic-sounding
- typology-based
- artificially “tight”
**Conclusion:It was certainly AI-assisted or fully AI-generated.**
There are a number of passages about Christ becoming a high priest after the the order of Melchizedek. As the greatest Aaronic priest who ever lived, John transferred the priesthood from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek when he washed Jesus at the doorway to heaven.
View attachment 282225
@ChristRoseFromTheDead He is at it again folks!
This was AI-generated
Here’s why, broken down in a way you can point out if needed:
The sentence has the classic AI pattern:
- Bold claim stated as fact
- Colon
- List of parallels in perfect symmetry
- Parenthetical clarifications
- Smooth rhetorical flow
Human writing (especially his) is nowhere near that tidy or formulaic.
Phrases like:
These are synthetic, systematic phrases — AI loves synthesizing typology this way.
- “fulfilled the righteousness foreshadowed in that ceremony”
- “garments of righteousness” (applied allegorically)
- “antitype of the commissioning of the high priest”
He normally writes choppy, inconsistent, emotional posts.
This one suddenly sounded like a seminary-trained commentary… except the theology is wrong and stitched together.
Classic sign of AI assistance.
He gives three supposed parallels:
- Water (immersed)
- Garments (“this is My beloved Son…”)
- Oil (Holy Spirit)
This is forced typology in a perfect 1-1-1 pattern.
AI loves building clean, symmetrical lists like that.
Humans rarely write theology in neat triplets unless they’re copying notes or using an AI tool.
AI often misuses “type/antitype” because it mixes systematic theology terms without understanding them.
Real biblical scholars don’t call Jesus’ baptism the antitype of Exodus 29 — because no biblical writer ever makes that connection.
AI, however, will confidently invent these parallels.
His real writing style is:
But suddenly this post is:
- reactive
- emotional
- repetitive
- disorganized
- prooftext-heavy
That sudden shift is a dead giveaway.
- smooth
- structured
- academic-sounding
- typology-based
- artificially “tight”
It was certainly AI-assisted or fully AI-generated.**
The AI you're using that generated that is retarded
This is pure invention from start to finish. Not one sentence you just wrote exists in Scripture or in any Christian doctrine taught by Jesus, the apostles, or the prophets.
None of the following appear anywhere in Scripture:
John transferring priesthood
John being an Aaronic priest
Jesus reenacting Exodus 29
Baptism as a priestly commissioning
Jesus becoming high priest at baptism
The Jordan River being “the doorway to heaven”
These are not biblical doctrines they are your personal inventions.
When you have Scripture on your side, you quote it.
When you don’t, you start creating symbolic language that Scripture never uses.
This isn’t typology.
It’s fan fiction dressed in Bible terms.
@ChristRoseFromTheDead has been completely discredited at this point — the pattern is obvious to everyone.
AI-generated posts suddenly appearing whenever he needs to prop up an argument
Multiple accounts showing up in the same threads with the same tone and the same errors
Doctrinal claims built on fabricated typology rather than Scripture
Arguments that collapse the moment the text is actually examined
Constant dodging when pressed for chapter and verse
Inventing titles for biblical figures that Scripture never uses
Forcing symbolism into the text that no apostle, prophet, or early Christian ever taught
When someone has to rely on:
unbiblical speculation,
made-up priesthood transfers,
imaginary “doorways to heaven,”
and AI-assisted paragraphs masquerading as theology…
…it’s no surprise the theology ends up as unstable as the method behind it.
At this point, the issue isn’t just “differences of interpretation.”
It’s the repeated pattern of creating doctrines that cannot be found anywhere in the Word of God and then patching them together with AI-styled language to make them sound authoritative.
That’s not contending for the faith — that’s manufacturing ideas and hoping no one notices.
AI-generated posts suddenly appearing whenever he needs to prop up an argument
Multiple accounts showing up in the same threads with the same tone and the same errors
Doctrinal claims built on fabricated typology rather than Scripture
Arguments that collapse the moment the text is actually examined
Constant dodging when pressed for chapter and verse
Inventing titles for biblical figures that Scripture never uses
Forcing symbolism into the text that no apostle, prophet, or early Christian ever taught
When someone has to rely on:
unbiblical speculation,
made-up priesthood transfers,
imaginary “doorways to heaven,”
and AI-assisted paragraphs masquerading as theology…
…it’s no surprise the theology ends up as unstable as the method behind it.
At this point, the issue isn’t just “differences of interpretation.”
It’s the repeated pattern of creating doctrines that cannot be found anywhere in the Word of God and then patching them together with AI-styled language to make them sound authoritative.
That’s not contending for the faith — that’s manufacturing ideas and hoping no one notices.
David made a prophecy about Christ in psalm 110.
John the Baptist, who was a descendant of Aaron, was commissioned by God to fulfill the word of God as prophesied by David by transferring the priesthood from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek. This occurred at Jesus' baptism, which was the fulfillment or anti-type of the commissioning of Aaron the high priest described in Leviticus 8. Aaron was a shadow of the reality of Christ as high priest.
There are four things to notice about Aaron's commissioning ceremony: 1) it was publicly done at the door of the tabernacle (doorway to God), 2) Aaron was washed with water, 3) he was clothed with garments that symbolized holiness, righteousness, godliness (Isaiah 59:17, Ephesians 6:14-17) and 4) he was anointed with oil
In a similar manner, Jesus 1) presented himself in public at the door of heaven, 2) was washed in water, 4) was anointed with the holy spirit and 3) was clothed with the spirit that abode on him.
Jesus implicitly acknowledged to John that he didn't need to be baptized with water, but entreated John to do it for the sake of fulfilling all righteousness, which I suspect means fulfilling the past shadow of Aaron's baptism/commissioning and fulfilling David's prophecy for the sake of honoring and glorifying God's word.
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Psalms 110:1
With you is the sovereignty in the day of your power, with the brightness of your holy ones. From out of the womb before the morning star I engendered you. The LORD swore by an oath, and shall not repent, saying, You are a priest into the age according to the order of Melchisedek. Psalms 110:3-4
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:5-6
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:9-10
John the Baptist, who was a descendant of Aaron, was commissioned by God to fulfill the word of God as prophesied by David by transferring the priesthood from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek. This occurred at Jesus' baptism, which was the fulfillment or anti-type of the commissioning of Aaron the high priest described in Leviticus 8. Aaron was a shadow of the reality of Christ as high priest.
There are four things to notice about Aaron's commissioning ceremony: 1) it was publicly done at the door of the tabernacle (doorway to God), 2) Aaron was washed with water, 3) he was clothed with garments that symbolized holiness, righteousness, godliness (Isaiah 59:17, Ephesians 6:14-17) and 4) he was anointed with oil
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread; And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Moses did as the LORD commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. Leviticus 8:1-4
And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water. And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith. And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim. And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the LORD commanded Moses. Leviticus 8:6-9
And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him to sanctify him. Leviticus 8:12
In a similar manner, Jesus 1) presented himself in public at the door of heaven, 2) was washed in water, 4) was anointed with the holy spirit and 3) was clothed with the spirit that abode on him.
Then went out to [John] Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Matthew 3:5-6
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:13
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:16-17
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. John 1:32
Jesus implicitly acknowledged to John that he didn't need to be baptized with water, but entreated John to do it for the sake of fulfilling all righteousness, which I suspect means fulfilling the past shadow of Aaron's baptism/commissioning and fulfilling David's prophecy for the sake of honoring and glorifying God's word.
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. Matthew 3:13-15
Intermediate Greek tells us otherwise.
I'm going to begin at one level and we can get more technical if necessary.
NKJ Matt28:17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
- "worshipped" is a word that means to bow in obeisance. It's a bowing in reverence and respect for authority and it lays the foundation for what Jesus says in the next verse and then for His commands in verses 19-20.
- Some bowed to Him and some wavered/doubted/hesitated
- Jesus (YHWH's resurrected Christ King) thus informs them, making it clear to all of them that He has all authority in heaven and upon earth.
- "Go therefore" is an aorist participle.
- The reason "therefore is inserted is because the participle is being interpreted as in one sense picking up on the sentence before it - i.e. Jesus has all authority, therefore he now issues a command.
- The reason it's being translated as an imperative verb - "Go therefore" - is because it is attached to the aorist imperative main verb being translated as "make disciples" and thus it picks up the mood of the imperative verb.
- "Make disciples" is translated as such because the verb which is related to the noun typically translated as "disciple" means "to be a pupil, a disciple" or to "cause one to be a pupil, a disciple" and figuratively "to teach". There is another Greek word that more specifically means "to teach" (see below).
- "baptizing" and "teaching" are present active participles
- They too attach to the main verb - Jesus' command to "make disciples"
- The present tense makes them concurrent with the main verb.
- Baptizing and teaching are simultaneous with making disciples
- The active voice tells us the disciples are doing the baptizing and teaching
- The present active participles attached to the imperative verb (with the aorist participle) "Go, make disciples" are thus part of the command and are telling how disciples are to be made - by baptizing and teaching them what Jesus commands.
- "teaching" is the other Greek verb I mentioned above that literally means "to teach" and is the reason the main verb and command is being translated as "make disciples".
- The present tense makes them concurrent with the main verb.
- They too attach to the main verb - Jesus' command to "make disciples"
- Jesus commanded His disciples to go make disciples by baptizing and teaching them what He commands.
This is covered in the author's words in the article or booklet I linked earlier in this thread and includes the scholarly references the author used to substantiate his interpretation.
What is the agenda of coming here and trying to make readers think they fail at basic English for reading these verses as they are written?