Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit : THAT PROPHET

Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit

And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. -Acts 1:4-5

The above passage reveals the following points :
A. Jesus commanded
1. That they (disciples) should not depart from Jerusalem,
2. that they should wait for the promise of the Father (God)

B. Promise
1. The promise was made by God.
2. “Ye heard of me...” means conveyed through Jesus. In other words “As has
been prophesied by me (Jesus).
3. What is that promise? -Baptism in Holy Ghost.

C. Baptism
1. John baptized in water.
2. You (people) shall be baptized in Holy Ghost

D. Time
1. “Not many days hence...” means in near future.
Now let us discuss all the above points one after another.
A reminder of original prophecy
The above passage is nothing but a reminder of the original prophecy under duscussion in an another form.
(The original prophecy can be seen in Matthew 3:11-12)

The following are the main points of the original prophecy.
1. I indeed baptize you with water.
2. But he that cometh after me, shall baptize you with Holy Ghost.
Examine carefully the reminder as cited in Acts 1:4-5 under discussion.
Jesus commanded his disciples to wait for the promise of God (Acts 1:4-5).

1Q. What is that promise ?
Ans. “Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost.”

2Q. When ?
Ans. “Not many days hence” (means in near future).

3Q. Was this promise made by God directly to the people?
Ans. No-But “Ye heard of me” means “Conveyed by me (Jesus) to you” or in other words, “I(Jesus) prophesied you.”

Note : The above passage was stated by Jesus at the time of his departure from the world.

4Q. What do the words such as “Ye shall be baptized in Holy Ghost in near future (Not many days hence) spoken at the time of one’s own departure from the world -mean to ?
Ans. Mean to say in clear terms as - “Ye shall be baptized in Holy Ghost AFTER ME”.

The following are the answers reproduced as arrived at from the above questioneer.
I (Jesus) prophesied - Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost -----
After me ----
And again
We must bear in mind that Jesus had baptized people only in water. These points are discussed and proved in our coming pages basing on scriptural facts. Then therefore it would not be unreasonable if “I(Jesus) baptized you in water.” - is also added to the above points.

Then therefore the points come as follows.
I (Jesus) prophesied -I (Jesus) baptized you in water - Ye shall be baptized with Holy Ghost --- After me---
Now recollect the important points as recorded in original prophecy under discussion (Matthew 3:11-12).
“I indeed baptize you with water. But he that cometh after me,baptize You in Holy Ghost.”
A diligent examination of the above points as arrived from the reminder (Acts 1:4-5) and the points specifically mentioned in the prophecy under discussion as recorded (in Matthew 3:11,12) reveals the fact that these two - is one and the same prophecy while the former one is a reminder and the latter - the original prophecy.

The only difference between these two is, one is in passive voice while the other is in Active voice respectively.

Thus it has been proved beyond doubt that the original prophecy had been prophesied by Jesus himself. In this way the whole mystery is vanished and it is made clear that Jesus himself had prophesied about his successor who would come after him, and that who would baptize in Holy Spirit.

Let us see in another way also.
The original prophecy is in Active voice.
 I indeed baptize you with water. But he that cometh after me baptizeth in Holy Ghost. (Matthew 3:11,12)
The subject ‘I’ mentioned above is attributed to the person of John by the Church (John 1:26-34). But our arguments proved that it was not prophesied by John. Then therefore the subject ‘I’ of the above verse inevitably and invariably stands for Jesus himself. In this way it is clearly proved that this prophecy had been made by Jesus himself and at the time of his departure had once again been reminded.

Yet let us discuss in more detailed way.
One can easily understand from the passage Acts 1:4-5 that Jesus had commanded his disciples in his last meeting before his departure from the world, that they should wait to receive the promise of God conveyed through him. The promise of God is explained in the passage itself which reads as “But ye shall be baptized in Holy Spirit not many days hence.”

 This evidently proves that Jesus had never baptized people in Holy Spirit. If he had ever baptized in Holy Spirit, he would not have assured his disciples that they would be baptized in Holy Spirit in the following near future after his departure . By whom they would be baptized is not clearly recorded. Yet it is not at all a mystery which remains undisclosed. But if the discerning readers pay a little more attention, they can understand that they(disciples)1 would be baptized in Holy Spirit by him who was entrusted to baptize people in Holy Spirit -the greater one who was to come after him as according to the prophecy. But not by Jesus himself.

BIBLE STUDY - REVEALS : THAT PROPHET

BIBLE STUDY - REVEALS

If we make a careful and deep study of the Bible, keeping in mind the necessary qualifications and qualities specifically mentioned in the prophecy about one who was yet to come, it will be made crystal clear that this prophecy was not made by John relating to the person of Jesus who was his contemporary but by Jesus himself about one to come after him (i.e) the comforter :

Now let us examine the Biblical records relevant to the point, to find out the correct person that had prophesied and that about whom it had been prophesied.

Analytical study of the prophecy reveals the following points :
1. He who prophesied this had been baptizing with water; and he that was to come after him, was to baptize in Holy Ghost... that means he would not give baptism in water, as the prophecy makes this point clear saying as “ I indeed baptize you with water .... he shall baptize you with Holy Ghost.”

2. He about whom this prophecy was made should come only after him by whom this prophecy was made; because the verse clearly points out to this fact sayingas “ He that cometh after me.” Therefore he about whom this prophecy was made should come only after him that prophesied but in no way should either be a former one or a contemporary.

3. He who was to come should be greater and mightier than him who prophesied, because the prophecy illuminates on this fact saying as “But he that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.”

4. The promised one must have his fan in his hand. Fan means a thing useful to separate the chaff and the wheat. Here the fan is figuratively used for law, which discriminates the righteous and the sinners just as a fan separates the chaff and wheat. That means the promised one, of the prophecy should be a law giver.

The attention of the readers is invited to note that we are trying to find out that who was the person that had prophesied this prophecy under discussion and about whom. It is an open fact that Church argues that this was prophesied by John about Jesus, because it is so written in the Gospel of St. John. But our arguments made so far proved that it was not John who prophesied this. Then by whom was it prophesied and about whom, are the points which can be discussed later; but prior to this let us see whether this prophey in any way applicable to Jesus as is presumed and contended by the Church. The first point we have arrived at from the prophecy is that one who prophesied this was baptizing in water .... and one who was to come after him, as proclaimed by himself should baptize in Holy Ghost. And according to this, if the contention of the Church and the narrations of the Gospel in effect to this issue were true, Jesus should have baptized people in Holy Spirit only. But not in any thing else.

Jesus baptized - but in what?
Now let us see whether Jesus had ever baptized in Holy Spirit.
Read the following passages:-
a. After these things, came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea: and there he tarried with them, and baptized. -John 3:22

b. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.  -John 3:26-27

c. When therefore the Lord Knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John... -John 4:1

The aforesaid three references of Gospel John give undeniable proof that Jesus had baptized people, yet it has not been clearly mentioned whether he baptized in water or in Holy Spirit. So let us now find out in which of the two he had baptized.

NOT PROPHESIED BY JOHN - THAT PROPHET

NOT PROPHESIED BY JOHN

His enquiry dampens the contention of church
Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? -Matthew 11:2-3

At the outset this enquiry of John to Jesus, whether he (Jesus) was he, that was to come or that they should look for another - disproves the passage under reference John 1:26-342. And what more evidence is required to rebut the Church and to prove that this passage is a mere interpolated part subsequently added in the Gospel John by the Church to justify the main prophecy under discussion relating to the person of Jesus himself? Yet let us examine other reasons too.

1. John’s enquiry to Jesus whether he was he that was to come, unveils the hidden fact, that John, as we said above, was in know that one was yet to come.

2. John had sent his disciples to Jesus to enquire whether he was he that was to come, only after hearing the works done by Jesus. That means those tremendous works of Jesus made him think that Jesus might be that one who was to come, and this infers that he who was to come must be a greater one. This point is also corroborated in the main prophecy saying as “He that cometh after me is mightier than I.”

3. “ Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?” This enquiry of John about Jesus, undoutedly proves that though John already was in know about the advent of that prophet, the correct person and the definite time of his advent was not in his knowledge.

4. And this question of John also provides a marvelous record proving the historical fact that until the time of Jesus, that promised one, the prophet of this prophecy about whom the person of John himself was in expectation of , had not appeared.

5. And also infers that until that time, John regarded Jesus, only as an ordinary prophet like himself, but not as a greater one who was to come.

John enquired from prison-until then Jesus was regarded as an equal prophet to himself
In the light of these points, one can easily imagine the confounded state and uncertain opinion of John about Jesus. If this had been the state, we would like to ask the Church that, how can it ascribe the prophecy which has been made so explicitly pin pointing about one to come, to have been said by John relating to Jesus himself?

And another reason is
Jesus did not give any direct answer to the question of John. For argument’s sake for a while let us agree that Jesus had answered John saying that he himself was he who was to come. The readers are requested to bear in mind that John had sent this question from prison, wherefrom having not been released and while yet in the prison itself he had been beheaded by Herod the then ruler.

If this be the fate of John, we would like to question the Church, that where was the chance for John to come before the people and declare pointing Jesus, saying as - “ Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man etc?” (John 1:26-34)

Before imprisonment?
The Church may try to defend this by saying that this was proclaimed by John, even before his imprisonment. Such explanations rather deprive the Church of getting any strong hold on this issue, because until the time that John had sent his enquiry from prison, he had not at all regarded Jesus himself as one mightier that was to come. If this be the fact about his uncertain opinion about Jesus until the time of his enquiry from prison, how can Church make one believe that this prophecy and proclamation under John 1:26-34 were made by John even before his imprisonment? Our further discussions in connection with the attitude of John towards Jesus will also help readers to understand our argument more clearly.

John never declared about Jesus - neither before imprisonment nor after - a strong point to rebut the claim of the church

The summary of our arguments made so far to rebut the contention of Church and to prove that this was not prophesied by John relating to Jesus is as follows:-

The prophecy is obvious to have been prophesied by one with definite knowledge and with decisive opinion beyond any doubt. But the opinion of John about Jesus was indecisive and indefinite and not beyond doubt, and he had no definite knowledge about the person who was yet to come. So John was not the prophesying person.

If this be the confounded state and indecisive opinion of John about Jesus, how can this prophecy which had been said by one so vehemently and decisively with definite knowledge and firm opinion, be attributed to have been said by John himself? (and that too about Jesus?)

Prior to imprisonment, John regarded Jesus only as an equivalent prophet to himself and was curiously expecting for a greater one to come. And therefore he could in no way have proclaimed this prophecy relating to Jesus. And after questioning Jesus from prison whether Jesus himself was one that was to come (even if it is agreed that Jesus had answered in positive) he had no chance to come out of the prison to declare this before people, as he had been beheaded even while yet in the prison. These two points evidently prove that John had never prophesied this either before his imprisonment or after or at any time during his term of life.

When once it is agreed and proved that this was not prophesied by John, the passages, records, verses whatever are found in Gospels showing this prophecy to have been stated by John relating to the person of Jesus, can be regarded as mere interpolations made subsequently to justify their presumptive interpretation. Our arguments made so far proved that this was not prophesied by John. Thus the first point of the Church has been rebutted. Then who prophesied this and about whom? -is the curious question which needs a careful examination.

John baptized Jesus - THAT PROPHET

John baptized Jesus

Though it is contraray to the prophecy, for argument’s sake let us for a while agree with the contention of the church that this prophecy had been prophesied by John himself in connection with Jesus.

If it were so ..
A. in no way could John baptize Jesus - that too in water. And on the other hand he himself should have been baptized by Jesus in Holy Ghost. But quite contrary to this we read in Gospel that Jesus was baptized in water by John.

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade 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

According to the intepretation of the Church in the light of this prophecy, John being the prophesying person (according to Church) he was incompetent even to bear the shoes of Jesus. If this be his derogatoy state, why Jesus took all the pains to come all the way from Galilee to Jordan where John was baptizing? Did he come there to baptize John in Holy Ghost? No-But he himself to be baptized of him in water.

Had this really been prophesied by John about Jesus, John (according to prophecy) was incompetent even to bear the shoes of Jesus. But here Jesus came to John to be baptized of him and John baptized Jesus in water. If Jesus were the person to baptize in Holy Ghost why was he himself baptized in water that too by an undeserving person who was not even worthy of bearing his shoes? Does this singular act not hint us to conclude that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus?

Adjustments made on mutual consent
Just to erase this likely suspense and suspicion even from the minds of elite Christians, the Church tries to divert their minds to make them think that John was really to be baptized of Jesus by forwarding the conversation between John and Jesus as cited below.

John says - “ I have need to be baptized of you” and enquires to Jesus - “Comest thou to me?” (Matthew 3:13-15)

On any particular reason, Jesus might not have baptized John, which point however would not matter except of depriving him(John) of being baptized in Holy Ghost by a greater one. But what surprises one and matters adversely is -that Jesus himself was baptized by John. If the prophecy were about him(Jesus), could he ever have allowed such thing to be done? If John were the prophesying person, could he ever have missed the opportunity of being baptized by Jesus in Holy Ghost for the remission of sins? And in reply Jesus says to John - “Suffer it to be so now.” (Matthew 3:13-15)

According to Church he(Jesus) was sent to baptize in Holy Ghost. But as a matter of fact asks John the unworthy person (according to church) to baptize him in water.

Were he really appointed to baptize in Holy Ghost could he ever have been baptized in water?

Were they the real persons as one as prophesying one, and the other, one about whom this prophecy was made, as Church professes, could they have made adjustments in baptisms according to their mutual consent agreed upon, leaving aside the commandments of God in this respect?

Baptism in water continued - still continues in the churches
B. John should have desisted himself from giving baptism in water from the very next moment of Jesus’ appearance. And Jesus should have begun the procedure of giving baptism in Holy Ghost. Thus the procedure of giving baptism in water should have been replaced by the system of baptizing in Holy Ghost.

None of the two points can positively be answered by the church. And on the other hand the system of baptizing people in water which Jesus adopted, has been in practice eversince.

And again
John did not join the company of Jesus - nor his disciples
C. John in no way could have his independant mission along with his own disciples, but should have joined the company of Jesus (altogether) and become his disciples.

Except two, no other disciple of John had joined the company of Jesus. And John had his own mission.

1. Again the next day after John stood and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, behold the lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. -John 1:35-37

2. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast in to prison. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about prurifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. -John 3:22-26

3. When therefore the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John... -John 4:1

4. Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples. -Matthew 11-2

5. And his (John’s) disciples came and took up the body, and buried it and went and told Jesus. -Matthew 14:12

The above references clearly show that except the two no other disciple of John had joined the company of Jesus. And also tell us that both John and Jesus were performing their ministries separately at the same period.

D. John had led his own separate mission with separate system of prayer.

Thus we read-
 And it came to pass that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. -Luke 11:1

If this had really been prophesied by John about Jesus, then why did not he allow his disciples to join the company of Jesus and why did he lead his own separate mission?

These two points prove beyond doubt that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus.

We are sure that Church has no proper answers for our questions which have been raised so far, except some irrelevant interpretations in the manner of escapism or in an apologetic way or in compromising attitude.

The main reasons for our declaration that this was not prophesied by John about Jesus are as mentioned below.

No doubt that John had baptized people in water. Yet it does not give sanction to the claim of Church that John had prophesied this and that about Jesus only, until it is made known that Jesus had baptized people in Holy Spirit.

As a matter of fact that all the prophets from the times of Abraham to John and Jesus had been in know about the advent of a greater prophet of sure of this prophecy; and all had also prophesied about that prophet. And likewise John too might have prophesied. But those prophecies of John have not been recorded in the Gospels. As regards to other prophets and their prophecies about the advent of that prophet, some prophecies have been incorporated in other books of the Bible but many were lost or might have wantonly been excluded. Now what our argument is that this prophecy under discussion is not the one that had been prophesied by John about Jesus. Even if it is admitted that it had been prophesied by John himself the prophecy does not in any way attract (apply) to the person of Jesus. And in support of our claim we would like to illuminate on the following more important points in addition to what so far have been discussed.

THAT PROPHET

In the name of Creator

THAT PROPHET

A PROPHECY
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: whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into the garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire -Matthew 3:11-12

The above verses obviously give rise of two important questions-
1. Who stated this ?
2. About whom this statement was made ?

The context of the passage clearly provides the answer for the first question as John the Baptist to have stated this, but the answer for the second, neither has been incorporated in this gospel nor in the successive two gospels Mark and Luke; but we have a clear mention of the same in the gospel of John as to have been said about Jesus.

Thus we read 
John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet, I am not wothry to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said after me cometh a man which is perferred before me, for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him, ; And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the son of God. -John 1:26-34

Thus it is made clear that the prophecy as recorded in Matthew 3:11-12 has been proclaimed by John the baptist about Jesus and this is the unconfounded belief of every Christian too.

When we arrive at the answers as above, there comes another logical yet pertinent question, whether the particular passage under discussion is a prophecy or not.

To know this no documentary evidence is required as the passage itself is self explanatory to prove this, as nothing, but a prophecy.

Meaning of Prophecy
The literal meaning of prophecy is to foretell. Foretelling itself implies that something is foretold before its occurrence(i.e) to be taken place only in future at any time. No doubt that the word future covers all the time to come from the next moment of its utterance unless specification of time is made such as “after a day or a year or a century etc.” But when a prophecy about one to come after him is made that itself prove that it is not said about the one that is already existing of his own time, but of one to come at any time only after him. The same thing is also corroborated in the prophecy itself saying as “...he that cometh after me...”

Not prophesied by John - nor about Jesus
However this logic leads to doubt whether the record of the Gospel of John under Ref: John 1:26-34 is authentic? If it were really said by John the baptist about Jesus, as is the contention of Church, Jesus should have appeared only after John or atleast should have started his mission only after the days of John, because the prophecy lays down emphasis on the point that he was to come after him. But Jesus was the contemporary of John and both of them were performing their ministries separately in the same period. And therefore it does not appear absurd if any one declares that the prophecy was neither prophesied by John nor was it the person of Jesus about whom it was prophesied.