On the baptism of Jesus

When you were washed by John, you say the spectre of a bird flew to you from the air. But what witness worthy of belief saw this spectre? Or who heard a voice from heaven adopting you for a son of god, except yourself and some of your associates, who was equally a partaker of your wickedness and punishment?

Arguments of Celsus against the Christians

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

11 thoughts on “On the baptism of Jesus

  1. aguywithoutboxers says:

    A good argument and valid question. No one can dispute the benefits of hygiene but using bathing as a claim to sanctity is a little over the top, even for a belief system. Have a great day, my friend! be safe!


  2. mixedupmeme says:

    “witness worthy of belief”
    Present your credentials please! And we don’t mean just swearing on the Bible.


  3. Eric Alagan says:

    Did Jesus make these claims? Nothing on record.

    Celsus’ question is very valid.


    • makagutu says:

      Celsus is quite right

      Mathew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”


  4. Many of the Christian philosophers’ works that have come down to us, among them, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin, espoused in their literature the orthodox belief that Yeshua (Jesus) was born of a virgin, half-man, half-god, and this was the view that ultimately prevailed in the power struggle that ensued. Interestingly, the etymology of orthodox, meant, “right-thinking,” whereas the word, heresy originally meant merely, “choice,” the choice of believing differently, but has since been corrupted to mean, “You think differently than I do, therefore, you’re wrong!?</em."

    Shortly after the event, which has never been fully substantiated, of the life and death of Yeshua, a number of "Christianities” emerged, among them, and ultimately prevailing, was the “orthodox” view that ultimately included a trinity.

    Among those considered heresies, were the Separationists, and those included the Adoptionists – these believed that Yeshua was merely a good, righteous man, whom the Bible’s god chose as coming closest to representing the ideal human, and so, chose to adopt him. These believed in a fully normal birth, the result of a sexual union, but that at his birth (some) or at his baptism (others) he was adopted by the Bible’s god, at which time, the Christ entered into him, and later, left him, either on the way to the cross (Likely saying, “No way THIS is gonna end well –!”), or while he was literally hanging out at Golgotha. For these, the Christ was an aeon, a power existing from eternity; an emanation or phase of the supreme deity, who dwelt in the Pleroma the spiritual universe, the abode of God and of the totality of the divine powers and emanations. Doesn’t make the Mormons or the Scientologists sound too wacky now, does it?

    Then there were the Docetists who believed that Yeshua actually WAS the one god, Yahweh, come to earth, and as such, he didn’t need to eat, but only appeared (the meaning of Docetism, to appear) to be made of flesh, to eat and perform other human bodily functions. One can see how that belief would have totally negated the idea of a sacrifice on the part of a god who only appeared to die.

    Folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried —


    • makagutu says:

      This is stuff you can’t make up!


      • Interestingly (I think, but then a yo-yo can keep me fascinated for hours – it goes down, it comes back up – you can’t explain that!), is the etymology of the word, “orthodox,” as well as the word, “heresy” – orthodox is a subjectively loaded word which actually means, “right thinking,” in other words, if I’m orthodox and you’re not, I’m right and you’re wrong, by definition, while heresy, simply means, “choice,” but has been subverted to refer negatively to a choice other than mine.


        • makagutu says:

          So the Orthodox Christian would be the right thinking Christian? Don’t you just love the English language and how it evolves


          • I once took a class in The History of the English Language – fascinating. Try reading Chaucer’s 14th century English sometime —

            “Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
            The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
            And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
            Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
            Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
            Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
            The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
            Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
            And smale foweles maken melodye,
            That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
            (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
            Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
            And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
            To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
            And specially from every shires ende
            Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
            The hooly blisful martir for to seke
            That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.”

            That’s easy for HIM to say!


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s