one-A-N wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
one-A-N wrote:
The point being missed here: previous washings were self-washings; John's baptism was NOT a self-washing - you got washed by someone else, you were passive instead of active.
Except someone who HAD been washed had to present themselves before a priest, particularly if the person was suffering from a skin disease.
??? What are you referring to?
The people baptised by John the Baptist or by Christ's disciples did not have to present themselves to priests. People healed of diseases that made them unclean (eg leprosy) had to present themselves to priests to be certified clean again.
I reiterate: before John the Baptist, Jewish washings involved the person washing themselves. John began a new types of washing, where he did the washing, not the person. That was John's innovation. Christ's disciples followed John's practice. Priests had nothing to do with John's baptism or Christ's disciples' baptisms, as far as I am aware.
Your post seems to me to be a non-sequitur, unless I am missing something here.
---
So you feel that John the Baptist created a new religious innovation - water baptism - and that technique/practice was accepted by his cousin, Jesus Christ, and that's why Jesus Christ decided to get water baptized in the Jordan River.
In the country of India, there is a long river, the Ganges, which Hindus view as a sacred river and enter it for spiritual improvement.
That's my understanding.
Jordan River (Israel) vs Ganges River (India)
Two different non-profit religions which faithfully believe in the power of river waters.
Two different non-profit religions which also believe each is right/each is the one true religion/whatever.