Different Gospels

[Thaddeus]

When you ask, "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

That's a rhetorical question you're using to express an argument-by-objection (a kind of “straw-man” concern): You're raising up a challenge to a hypothetical position—“If this leads to sinners too, then doesn’t it follow that Christ is encouraging sin?”—so it can be addressed directly in a discussion.

The problem with your question is that it assumes a false equivalence, that “being among sinners” means “Christ promotes sin.” Why not separate justification from permission to sin? Why the false hypothetical? There's no right answer to the wrong question, meaning that the premise itself is unvalidated by anything else you said prior to this.

MM

But you cannot answer questions concerning Gal2:17&18 relating to what Paul wrote in those verses can you. As you do not understand why he stated:
But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

Why not have a go at Paul stating you have no righteousness of not committing sin, yet if you are a slave to sin it leads to death
Before you answer, according to Paul, the Romans USED to be slaves to sin, but obviously are no longer according to Paul's terminology of those words, yet they would still die a natural death

 

[Thaddeus]

When you ask, "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

That's a rhetorical question you're using to express an argument-by-objection (a kind of “straw-man” concern): You're raising up a challenge to a hypothetical position—“If this leads to sinners too, then doesn’t it follow that Christ is encouraging sin?”—so it can be addressed directly in a discussion.

The problem with your question is that it assumes a false equivalence, that “being among sinners” means “Christ promotes sin.” Why not separate justification from permission to sin? Why the false hypothetical? There's no right answer to the wrong question, meaning that the premise itself is unvalidated by anything else you said prior to this.

MM

BTW
You wished to address what Paul wrote in Gal2:17&18, so, try again to answer the three questions relating to what Paul wrote in that passage. If you cannot, there seems little point in continuing:
Justification is instantaneous once someone accepts Christ as their saviour, The justification Paul is writing about clearly takes time to achieve. So what justification is Paul writing about?



Why does Paul ask the question: Doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?



What does Paul mean when he states: If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

 

[Musicmaster]

BTW
You wished to address what Paul wrote in Gal2:17&18, so, try again to answer the three questions relating to what Paul wrote in that passage. If you cannot, there seems little point in continuing:
Justification is instantaneous once someone accepts Christ as their saviour, The justification Paul is writing about clearly takes time to achieve. So what justification is Paul writing about?



Why does Paul ask the question: Doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?



What does Paul mean when he states: If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

I will fall back on your own dodges of "I've already answered that..." Given that you finally did reveal your answer as being on the basis of some other woman's own lack of faith and her resulting tears, and the lack of clarifications asked of you to seal up the answer I was asking for, it's all still hanging in midair, right?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

But you cannot answer questions concerning Gal2:17&18 relating to what Paul wrote in those verses can you. As you do not understand why he stated:
But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

Why not have a go at Paul stating you have no righteousness of not committing sin, yet if you are a slave to sin it leads to death
Before you answer, according to Paul, the Romans USED to be slaves to sin, but obviously are no longer according to Paul's terminology of those words, yet they would still die a natural death

I did answer that by pointing out that your question lacks foundational premises that are verifiable. No legitimate conclusion can be arrived at nor offered when the premise is flawed.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Given that you finally did reveal your answer as being on the basis of some other woman's own lack of faith and her resulting tears,

With tears streaming down her cheeks, she said:
''Anyone can see the power in their services I have seen in mine, but it costs everything''

Best not to tell untruths as the deflection needed as you cannot answer the question

 

[Thaddeus]

I did answer that by pointing out that your question lacks foundational premises that are verifiable. No legitimate conclusion can be arrived at nor offered when the premise is flawed.

MM

In other words, you are unable to answer the questions!

 

[biblestudent78]

Obedience to what, and for what, may I ask?



Where is that written, and to whom?



Yes He did say that, and that was spoken to Israel, not to Gentiles.



Again, yes to us of ancient Israel, not not for the body of Christ today. Are you a Messianic Jew? They believe in what you're saying as did the Jews in Jerusalem from whom the Judaizers originated.



Yes, and he was baptized by one who was under the Kingdom Gospel given that the Gospel of Grace had not yet been established and placed in force.



Would you mind quoting that and highlighting where you think you see that in the text?



Yes, it was...to whom it was commanded, which was Israel.



Again, please quote that with highlights as to where you think it says such.



What's interesting is that Jesus told Israel that those who believe shall do all those miraculous things who believe. Do you do those things? If not, then why? Do you lack faith? Can you speak in other tongues? Can you lay hands upon and heal the infirmed? Can you be bitten by a deadly serpent or drink deadly things and not be harmed, or would you die like all the rest of us if not infused with antivenom or having your stomach pumped?

I'm asking because this drives at the heart of the belief that failure to rightly dividing the word of truth is a virtue and therefore a non-confusing practice so prolific among so much of modern Evangelicalism and a number of other -isms.

MM

MM
Good discussion. This may take a while.... "Obedience to what, and for what, may I ask?" I don't think a exhaustive list is warranted to answer your question. First, obedience is important because Jesus said so. Jesus taught that true obedience to God comes from love, not just a rule. He said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). For Jesus, actions showed true faith. He asked, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46) Obedience is proof of love: Jesus said, "Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me" (John 14:21) I have published this before, but will again. These are the specific commands of Jesus that set goals and objectives in every aspect of our life.
Jesus commandments take at least four forms.
1. Commands about the character of the new person “be this kind of new person”
2. Commands that define the heart of the new person
3. Commands for the new person to avoid
4. Commands related to our common mission
Character of the New Person
Be light – Let your light shine Matt 5:16
Be salt Matt 5:17
Be a servant Matt 23:11
Be a reconciler Matt 5:23-24, 18:15-17
Be on guard against greed and sin Luke 12:15, Matt 26:41
Take sin very seriously (Matthew 5:29–30)
Be perfect (in love) Matt 5:48
Be forgiving Matt 18:21-22
Be repentant Matt 4:17
Be born again John 3:5
Be the person who will go the second mile Matt 5:41
Be the person who can turn the other cheek Matt 5:39
Be the person who always gives to those who ask Matt 5:42
Be the person who will always loan their stuff Matt 5:42
Be the person who seeks Gods Kingdom first Matt 6:33
Be the person who honors their marriage Mark 10:6-9
Be the person who takes communion Matt 26:26-27
Be poor in spirit Matt 5:3
Be meek Matt 5:5
Be the person who hungers and thirsts for righteousness Matt 5:6
Be merciful Matt 5:7
Be pure of heart Matt 5:8
Be peace makers 5:9
Be the person who comes to Jesus for rest Matt 11:28

Heart of the New Person
Love and pray for your enemies Matt 5:44-46
The Golden Rule Matt 7:12
Love God Matt 22:37-38
Love your neighbor as yourself Matt 22:39
Love one another as I have loved you John 13:34, John 15:12, John 15:17
Love and invite the poor into your life Luke 14:12-14
Show your love by:
Feeding the hungry and quenching the thirsty Matt 25:35
Inviting in the stranger Matt 25:35
Clothing the naked Matt 25:36
Visiting the sick Matt 25:36
Visiting those in prison Matt 25:36

Things the New Person should avoid
Make no oaths – don’t swear Matt 5:34, 37
Don’t judge others Matt 7:1
Don’t lust Matt 5:27-30
Don’t fear those that can kill the body Matt 10:28
Don’t store up treasures on earth Matt 6:19

The Mission of the New Person
Find and enter the narrow gate Matt 7:13-14
Ask God for more harvest workers Matt 9:37-38
Preach the Gospel Matt 28:19-20
Make disciples, baptize them and teach them to obey my commandments Matt 28:19-20
Let your light shine before all people (Matthew 5:16)
Be reconciled to one another (Matthew 5:23–24)
Take sin very seriously (Matthew 5:29–30)

 

[Anchorite]

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve:

Mark 16:15-18

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


The emphatic declaration by Jesus that those who had faith and were baptized, therefore absolutely able to do ALL those things, here we are with clinics, hospitals and care homes filled with people almost never visited, and therefore never healed, by these Gentiles who claim they believe what Jesus taught as allegedly applying to us today.

Is this failure on their part a demonstration for a severe lack of faith on their part or are they failing to love, care and express a heart-felt compassion for the sick and infirmed people, or is it a perpetual demonstration for a lack of saving faith on their part?

The reason they don't go about healing and being healed by those who claim they're followers of Christ and His instructions in His Kingdom Gospel message is because that Kingdom Gospel message was unique to Israel alone under the Kingdom Gospel dispensation not meant for us today given the fall of Israel. That is the uncomfortable truth at play here.

Tell me when Jesus or His disciples went to leper colonies and healed them all?

Healing depends on the sick person exercising faith. It does not depend on a believer visiting hospitals and healing everyone, regardless of the sick people’s faith.


Acts 14:8,9,10

8 In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked.
9 This man was listening to the words of Paul, who looked intently at him and saw that he had faith to be healed.
10 In a loud voice Paul called out, “Stand up on your feet!” And the man jumped up and began to walk.


Acts 28

8The father of Publius was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him, and after praying and placing his hands on him, he healed the man.

9After this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured as well.



When Paul healed people, was he confused and operating under what you call the “kingdom gospel”?

 

[biblestudent78]

MM
"Yes He did say that, and that was spoken to Israel, not to Gentiles.This is not true. Jesus was not speaking to Israel but to mostly Galileans. Go into all the world......not just the jewish world, the entire world. Thus the message worldwide. In the New Testament many Gentiles were baptised so there was no restriction to "Israel." In our very earliest 1st century documents the Didache, there is detailed instructions for water baptism in the 1st century Church in Egypt, Syria or Antioch....all gentile cities. As far as can be determined, all early Christian churches required water baptism.
if they endure to the end. Philip said the same. Peter said the same.

"Again, yes to us of ancient Israel, not not for the body of Christ today. Are you a Messianic Jew? They believe in what you're saying as did the Jews in Jerusalem from whom the Judaizers originated." First, the Jews of Jesus time had been practicing water purification in pools for years but Jesus was not speaking of the Messianic Jews practice of water purification. Jesus cousin John the Baptist baptised for repentance. Jesus called for baptism for the remission of sins. Jesus was not a Messianic Jew. He rejected many Jewish practices and theology. He was an observant Jew as were his close followers because that was God's promise in the Hebrew Bible that a "new kingdom" would come. Not a Jewish Kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom. You seem to claim unique insight into what Jesus thought but not so much about what Jesus said.

I have been discussing the bible for a very long time with people of all christian faith and with non-believers. However, this claim you make is unique in my experience. "Yes, and he was baptized by one who was under the Kingdom Gospel given that the Gospel of Grace had not yet been established and placed in force." Very strange. The kingdom of Christ started on the day of Pentecost 50 days after Jesus crucifixion. The Holy Spirit (promised to them by Jesus) descended on Peter and the other Apostles and those in the crowd who were convicted in their heart cried out, what must we do to be saved." Those under the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.” So the promise of baptism and the Holy Spirit were to those present and to all who are far off whom the Lord calls to Himself. Obviously, Paul - the one we are discussing - was told to go to Damascus and what you must do will be told to you. Paul was baptised in a gentile city probably by gentile converts. Long after Jesus promised Kingdom had come.

I have to assume that your next question is one design to make some point. I accept it as an honest question.
"Jesus was baptised. Paul was baptised because God's messenger in Damascus told him what he must do. He was baptised."
"Again, please quote that with highlights as to where you think it says such."
The most detailed description of Jesus baptism is in Matthew 3:13-17. The baptism of Paul as described by Paul is in Acts 22:16

 

[biblestudent78]

MM
You asked:
"What's interesting is that Jesus told Israel that those who believe shall do all those miraculous things who believe. Do you do those things? If not, then why? Do you lack faith? Can you speak in other tongues? Can you lay hands upon and heal the infirmed? Can you be bitten by a deadly serpent or drink deadly things and not be harmed, or would you die like all the rest of us if not infused with antivenom or having your stomach pumped?

I'm asking because this drives at the heart of the belief that failure to rightly dividing the word of truth is a virtue and therefore a non-confusing practice so prolific among so much of modern Evangelicalism and a number of other -isms."

Let's deal first with the "long ending of Mark." The passage in question, Mark 16:17-18, is part of the "Longer Ending" of Mark (verses 9-20). Most scholars agree that these verses are absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, leading many to believe they were added to the Gospel later, likely in the 2nd century. Early Church writers and scholars, including Eusebius of Caesarea (265–340) and Jerome (347–420), noted that the passage was absent from almost all Greek manuscripts available to them. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (4th century), end the Gospel at 16:8.

As to "casting out devils" as far as I can tell this was a perspective of the times. They had no medical way of explaining a host of symptoms in people afflicted. The book of James says that elders of the church should lay their hands on the ill and pray for them. It does not claim miraculous healing. However there are snake handlers today but not too many poison drinkers.

On a personal note I have always been amused by the term translated often as dividing the Work of God. There is no truism so acute! We have been dividing the Word of God for 2,000 yrs so now we have divided it into 10's of thousands of pieces.

Obedience to what, and for what, may I ask?



Where is that written, and to whom?



Yes He did say that, and that was spoken to Israel, not to Gentiles.



Again, yes to us of ancient Israel, not not for the body of Christ today. Are you a Messianic Jew? They believe in what you're saying as did the Jews in Jerusalem from whom the Judaizers originated.



Yes, and he was baptized by one who was under the Kingdom Gospel given that the Gospel of Grace had not yet been established and placed in force.



Would you mind quoting that and highlighting where you think you see that in the text?



Yes, it was...to whom it was commanded, which was Israel.



Again, please quote that with highlights as to where you think it says such.



What's interesting is that Jesus told Israel that those who believe shall do all those miraculous things who believe. Do you do those things? If not, then why? Do you lack faith? Can you speak in other tongues? Can you lay hands upon and heal the infirmed? Can you be bitten by a deadly serpent or drink deadly things and not be harmed, or would you die like all the rest of us if not infused with antivenom or having your stomach pumped?

I'm asking because this drives at the heart of the belief that failure to rightly dividing the word of truth is a virtue and therefore a non-confusing practice so prolific among so much of modern Evangelicalism and a number of other -isms.

MM

Not to draw too fine a line about it, but if Jesus was not on national radio or tv then He only spoke to a few crowds the largest being a picnic on the hills over the sea of Galilee. At no time did he speak to Israel as Israel (Jews) were scattered around the entire Mediterranean.

 

[BartholomewB]

As to "casting out devils" as far as I can tell this was a perspective of the times. They had no medical way of explaining a host of symptoms in people afflicted. The book of James says that elders of the church should lay their hands on the ill and pray for them. It does not claim miraculous healing.

In full, James writes in this verse, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14, ESV).

The verb “anoint” in this verse has provided commentators with abundant fuel for their long-running quarrels. On the surface, the issue is whether “anoint” here refers to a religious rite invoking God’s blessing for the benefit of the patient’s health or to a medical procedure of the kind described in Luke 10:34, where the good Samaritan uses oil and wine in dressing the victim’s wounds.

The real conflict, however, arises from the importance Catholic theology attaches to James’ words. In R. V. G. Tasker’s brief commentary on James (just 144 pages) he devotes no less than 3½ pages (pp. 128-132) to a long rant against “the erroneous jusification which Roman Catholics have found in it for the so-called sacrament of extreme unction.” At the same time, he explicitly rejects the view that James intends his “anointing” to be understood in the curative or medicinal sense.

The problem is that Greek has two different verbs for “anoint”, aleipho and chrio. According to some scholars at least, aleipho normally refers to the curative use of oil while chrio is preferred in the sense of sacred anointing. James’ verb in this verse is aleipho.

 

[Anchorite]

If someone claims that only the “kingdom gospel” disciples were given the power to heal, James contradicts this false opinion.

James not only affirms the ability to minister healing to the sick, he guarantees that the prayer of faith (which he earlier maintains must be unwavering) will save the sick.

He then goes on, in the immediate context, to encourage faith in miracles, such as what Elias performed.

James makes it very clear that believers can heal and be healed. And he feels no need to list all the people he personally healed, nor does he say believers should go to leper colonies or hospitals to heal everybody.

James 5

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.

18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

We have been dividing the Word of God for 2,000 yrs so now we have divided it into 10's of thousands of pieces.

Precious friend, then should we not obey 2 Timothy 2:15 AV, And start
"Rightly Dividing It" Instead, For God's Approval?:

Two Distinct And Different Gospels!

And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

 

[Anchorite]

Precious friend, then should we not obey 2 Timothy 2:15 AV, And start
"Rightly Dividing It" Instead, For God's Approval?:

Two Distinct And Different Gospels!

Two gospels idea comes from the doctrinal errors of hyper-dispensationalists.

E. W. Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, and Charles Welch were among the leading hyper-dispensationalist teachers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Men such as J. C. O'Hair, Charles F. Baker, and C. R. Stam continued to promulgate the two-gospels view (and in some cases posited more than two gospels!) later in the 20th century.

In the 21st century, television teacher Les Feldick is a leading proponent of these heretical views. Present-day advocates of these teachings generally refer to themselves as members of the deceptively-named "Grace Gospel Movement". Hundreds of churches in the United States and other parts of the world now identify with it.

But scriptures does not support two gospels.

The gospel of the kingdom in the 4 gospels is the same as the gospel of grace. Both teach making Jesus your Lord, trusting His death on the cross for your sins, believing that God raised Jesus from the dead, and receiving the gift of eternal life by faith through grace.

Colossians 1

5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

 

[frederickdoc]

But you cannot answer questions concerning Gal2:17&18 relating to what Paul wrote in those verses can you. As you do not understand why he stated:
But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?"

Why not have a go at Paul stating you have no righteousness of not committing sin, yet if you are a slave to sin it leads to death
Before you answer, according to Paul, the Romans USED to be slaves to sin, but obviously are no longer according to Paul's terminology of those words, yet they would still die a natural death

I think the jews seen every gentile as A sinner cause they knew they were the only chosen .Now they jew feel the anointed is of the sinner tyoe of thinking . They had to Now know Grace and realize their Nation Failed and Jesus created a new nation For All

 

[frederickdoc]

I think the jews seen every gentile as A sinner cause they knew they were the only chosen .Now they jew feel the anointed is of the sinner tyoe of thinking . They had to Now know Grace and realize their Nation Failed and Jesus created a new nation For All

This is like the parable same wage deal, to different group some worked longer and the others maybe one hr

 

[Musicmaster]

With tears streaming down her cheeks, she said:
''Anyone can see the power in their services I have seen in mine, but it costs everything''

Best not to tell untruths as the deflection needed as you cannot answer the question

Services? Jesus said nothing about services. He spoke of ability by way of the faith He spoke about.

Services...

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Services? Jesus said nothing about services. He spoke of ability by way of the faith He spoke about.

Services...

MM

Meetings/services/where christians gather together to worship. Does dispensationalism believe such meetings/services would be wrong?

 

[Anchorite]

Services? Jesus said nothing about services. He spoke of ability by way of the faith He spoke about.

Services...

MM

And that healing ability has been manifested in church services.

Jesus said nothing about sermons, theology, steeples, pulpits, hymn books, etc. — but that does not mean they have no value.

Terminology changes and new words proliferate as Language marches on.

 

[Musicmaster]

MM
"Yes He did say that, and that was spoken to Israel, not to Gentiles.This is not true. Jesus was not speaking to Israel but to mostly Galileans. Go into all the world......not just the jewish world, the entire world. Thus the message worldwide. In the New Testament many Gentiles were baptised so there was no restriction to "Israel." In our very earliest 1st century documents the Didache, there is detailed instructions for water baptism in the 1st century Church in Egypt, Syria or Antioch....all gentile cities. As far as can be determined, all early Christian churches required water baptism.
if they endure to the end. Philip said the same. Peter said the same.

"Again, yes to us of ancient Israel, not not for the body of Christ today. Are you a Messianic Jew? They believe in what you're saying as did the Jews in Jerusalem from whom the Judaizers originated." First, the Jews of Jesus time had been practicing water purification in pools for years but Jesus was not speaking of the Messianic Jews practice of water purification. Jesus cousin John the Baptist baptised for repentance. Jesus called for baptism for the remission of sins. Jesus was not a Messianic Jew. He rejected many Jewish practices and theology. He was an observant Jew as were his close followers because that was God's promise in the Hebrew Bible that a "new kingdom" would come. Not a Jewish Kingdom, but a heavenly kingdom. You seem to claim unique insight into what Jesus thought but not so much about what Jesus said.

I have been discussing the bible for a very long time with people of all christian faith and with non-believers. However, this claim you make is unique in my experience. "Yes, and he was baptized by one who was under the Kingdom Gospel given that the Gospel of Grace had not yet been established and placed in force." Very strange. The kingdom of Christ started on the day of Pentecost 50 days after Jesus crucifixion. The Holy Spirit (promised to them by Jesus) descended on Peter and the other Apostles and those in the crowd who were convicted in their heart cried out, what must we do to be saved." Those under the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.” So the promise of baptism and the Holy Spirit were to those present and to all who are far off whom the Lord calls to Himself. Obviously, Paul - the one we are discussing - was told to go to Damascus and what you must do will be told to you. Paul was baptised in a gentile city probably by gentile converts. Long after Jesus promised Kingdom had come.

I have to assume that your next question is one design to make some point. I accept it as an honest question.
"Jesus was baptised. Paul was baptised because God's messenger in Damascus told him what he must do. He was baptised."
"Again, please quote that with highlights as to where you think it says such."
The most detailed description of Jesus baptism is in Matthew 3:13-17. The baptism of Paul as described by Paul is in Acts 22:16

Your posts are so jumbled in with the statements of the other that it requires differentiation to separate it all out, and it's still hard to make heads and tails from. About water baptism, however, the Essene Jews were doing that long before the first century by a couple of hundred years almost.

MM