Jesus and Baptism

[BJ Bear]

A lot more can be said about the topic than can fit in a post so here is one aspect of Jesus and baptism.

“1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mar 1:1-4, KJVA)

Jesus, who had no sin of His own, came to this baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, the baptism of John given to him by God. Since it was given to John by God it accomplished and accomplishes what God intended, for example, this baptism from God did and does indeed forgive sins and Christ was made known through it.

We know it forgives sins because Christ who truly bore the sins of the world for us, John 1:29, was raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God. “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1Pe 2:24, KJVA)

How do we know our sins are also forgiven in baptism? Scripture says so in multiple ways. For example, Jesus told the chief priests and elders who had been questioning Him that the publicans go into the kindom of God before them rather than the publicans and harlots will go into the kingdom before them.

“Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.” (Mat 21:31-32, KJVA)

When a person despises and denies what Scripture says about the baptism from God that person also necessarily denies the person and work of Christ for them.

And so according to the prophet Daniel 7:14 the Son of man told His disciples, “18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19. ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Mat 28:18-20, KJVA)

 

[Josheb]

When a person despises and denies what Scripture says about the baptism from God that person also necessarily denies the person and work of Christ for them.

And so according to the prophet Daniel 7:14 the Son of man told His disciples, “18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19. ¶Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Mat 28:18-20, KJVA)

How does a person baptize a nation?

One person at a time?

 

[Fred]

4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mar 1:1-4, KJVA)

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

It is this baptism, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, that every Christian experiences in which places them into the body of Christ.

Cornelius and the Gentiles with him were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16)

Acts 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. (NASB) When those[1] in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) were baptized with the Holy Spirit they were placed into the NT Church.[2] The same is true concerning...

forums.carm.org

 

[BJ Bear]

How does a person baptize a nation?

One person at a time?

Sure. If the hypothetical is that there is only one person baptizing then baptizing a nation or people would be one person at a time from the least to the greatest, the youngest to the oldest.

 

[Josheb]

Sure. If the hypothetical is that there is only one person baptizing then baptizing a nation or people would be one person at a time..

Are you sure? Don't let me put words in your mouth.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "Baptize the nations...."? Did he mean countries? Did he mean ethnicities? Did he mean the nations of Israel (only)? You've added, "or people." Why didn't Jesus just say, "people," instead of "nations," if that's all he meant? Did he mean with water or the Holy Spirit? There was no baptism of the Holy Spirit like the one at Pentecost when he said those words. Ritually speaking, the only baptism they'd have understood was that of water, the cleansing ritual associated with the old covenant. Was Jesus implying the "nations" were to be subjected to an old covenant cleansing ritual applied at conversion? Peter tells us this isn't the washing away of dirt, but the pledge of a good conscience. Was Jesus telling his disciples to have the nations practice the pledge of a clean conscience?

Or does water have anything to do with Jesus' words? Jesus explicitly stated the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. There's no mention of water. If it isn't the old covenant washing ritual with water performed with converts to Judaism, then was it the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" wrote about to Titus? Or perhaps the "baptism into death" Paul wrote about in Romans?

What if the "hypothetical" is not "only one person baptizing"? I made no such stipulation. I don't see any such stipulation in Matthew 28:18-20. On that occasion Jesus was speaking to eleven people. Were his words intended only for those eleven? If so, then how and why apply it to others? If not, then to whom does it apply? All disciples? All disciples whether leaders in the body or not? Is Matthew 28:18-20 suggesting anyone (any disciple) can baptize the nations?

....from the least to the greatest, the youngest to the oldest.

An old person can't be baptized before the youngest person?

 

[BJ Bear]

Acts 11:16
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

It is this baptism, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, that every Christian experiences in which places them into the body of Christ.

Cornelius and the Gentiles with him were baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16)

Acts 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. (NASB) When those[1] in Acts 2:4 (cf. Acts 1:5) were baptized with the Holy Spirit they were placed into the NT Church.[2] The same is true concerning...

forums.carm.org

Most Christians think of God as the best teacher. Jesus is God incarnate so He is the best teacher. The Holy Spirit, God, is the best teacher as is the Father.

Since that is so, and there is no opposition, for your convenience, here is what Jesus told some unbelievers. Jesus said to them that John came to them in the way of justification or righteousness.

(The way of justification or righteous in which John came was the way of justification or righteousness for Jesus because He is a true man who came to bare the sins of the world. This is what Jesus meant when He told John that He being baptized by him was to fulfill all justification or righteousness.

When John did baptize Jesus what happened? The Holy Spirit descended upon Him as a dove and the Father said, This is my Son in whom I am well pleased. An obvious takeaway from the baptism of Jesus is that the one God is not in disagreement or opposition to His baptism and the baptism given by God to John to administer.)

Jesus also told those same unbelievers that the publicans and harlots who believed John enter the kingdom of God before them. That verb, "enter," is a present tense indicative. It refers to a current and ongoing action rather than a future event and action. In short, they enter in the kingdom of God because they had been born of water and the Spirit.

The person who attempts to pit the word of God against the word of God errs. The context of the passage you cited from Acts 11 is the evidence to Peter, when it first occurred, and through the witness of Peter the evidence to those whom he spoke that God has given the same gift to the Gentiles. The context of Acts 11 is not a further elucidation, correction, or refutation of what Jesus said about the baptism of John.

 

[Fred]

The person who attempts to pit the word of God against the word of God errs.

Agree.

The context of the passage you cited from Acts 11 is the evidence to Peter, when it first occurred, and through the witness of Peter the evidence to those whom he spoke that God has given the same gift to the Gentiles.

Before their water baptism.

The context of Acts 11 is not a further elucidation, correction, or refutation of what Jesus said about the baptism of John.

In the baptism of John, the Holy Spirit was not yet given to believers. (John 7:39)

 

[BJ Bear]

Are you sure? Don't let me put words in your mouth.

Ok. It might help to clear things up if it is noted that I answered according to the words of the hypothetical.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "Baptize the nations...."? Did he mean countries? Did he mean ethnicities? Did he mean the nations of Israel (only)? You've added, "or people." Why didn't Jesus just say, "people," instead of "nations," if that's all he meant?

If we forget about the hypothetical and focus on what Scripture says then it is all the nations or all the tribes or peoples. However a person chooses to translate ethnos it is inclusive of the category as the context is that of the Father giving Jesus all authority in heaven and earth, Matt. 28:18.

Did he mean with water or the Holy Spirit? There was no baptism of the Holy Spirit like the one at Pentecost when he said those words. Ritually speaking, the only baptism they'd have understood was that of water, the cleansing ritual associated with the old covenant. Was Jesus implying the "nations" were to be subjected to an old covenant cleansing ritual applied at conversion? Peter tells us this isn't the washing away of dirt, but the pledge of a good conscience.

Jesus was referring to the way of justification or righteousness in which John came and which was applied to Himself in baptism.

The parables or symbols of baptism in the Tanakh were regarding external matters. The baptism given to John was not. So Peter in writing to the those of the diaspora was sure to point out that the baptism he was writing of was not like the parables or symbols of baptism. 1 Peter:21.

Was Jesus telling his disciples to have the nations practice the pledge of a clean conscience?

In 1 Peter 3:21, and elsewhere in Scripture outside of the parables and symbols of baptism in the Tanaka, the person being baptized is a passive object rather than the one acting. The string of nouns sometimes translated as a parenthetical thought tell us what baptism is rather than what the passive person does.

Or does water have anything to do with Jesus' words? Jesus explicitly stated the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. There's no mention of water. If it isn't the old covenant washing ritual with water performed with converts to Judaism, then was it the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" wrote about to Titus? Or perhaps the "baptism into death" Paul wrote about in Romans?

I think that in most if not all of the parables or symbols of baptism in the Tanakh the one being cleansed or "baptized" was the one acting or cleansing according to this or that formula. The convert baptism was also according to the sane manner, that is, the one being baptized is the one cleansing or acting.

What if the "hypothetical" is not "only one person baptizing"? I made no such stipulation. I don't see any such stipulation in Matthew 28:18-20.

I didn't see anything indicating that the hypothetical question had a broader scope than the wording so I answered accordingly.

On that occasion Jesus was speaking to eleven people. Were his words intended only for those eleven? If so, then how and why apply it to others? If not, then to whom does it apply? All disciples? All disciples whether leaders in the body or not? Is Matthew 28:18-20 suggesting anyone (any disciple) can baptize the nations?

The command to baptize and teach all peoples would necessarily be included in the category of teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.

There is nothing in the passage which explicitly restricts baptizing and teaching to a subset of disciples. The passage does infer that there will be some disciples who baptize and teach all that He has commanded the disciples.

An old person can't be baptized before the youngest person?

Those are idioms of inclusivity in the Tanakh. When it referred to a people or the church it included the youngest to the oldest, etc

 

[Josheb]

Jesus was referring to the way of justification or righteousness in which John came and which was applied to Himself in baptism.

I do not think that is true.

Yes, John did baptize Jesus and Jesus did tell Joh it was fitting for "all righteousness" to be filled that way, but that does not mean that is what Jesus was commanding the eleven to do. Jesus' words were not the only report God had in that event and you have gone on record stating God is the best teacher. God also saw fit to have the record of the observing Jewish leaders included in the record of John's baptism. Why was that left out? I trust you won't fall prey to pitting scripture against scripture because you've said that is erroneous. I agree.

This op specifically cites the "Great Commission," AND done so saying the Great Commision is "according to the prophet Daniel 7:14." I happen to agree, even though I think you're laying fast and loose with both scripture and baptism. Jesus is NOW King of all kings and Lord of all lords and it is just a matter of time (as we perceive it) before every single knee every created bends in confession of that reality. Jesus has dominion. Jesus command to the elven to go out an baptize the nations may have to do with the ritual washing occurring in water baptism but there's no reason to limit the Matthew 28 text to water baptism, or the water baptism to fulfilling all righteousness..... since Jesus already did that! Water baptism does not add righteousness to that which has already been accomplished. Such a view of scripture would pit scripture against itself, especially given what we read about baptism after Matthew 28. Appeals to Greek nuances don't change that.

There is nothing in the passage which explicitly restricts baptizing and teaching to a subset of disciples. The passage does infer that there will be some disciples who baptize and teach all that He has commanded the disciples.

I agree, as long as it is acknowledged those words were in fact spoken explicitly to the eleven, and not all the other disciples existing at that time, and Jesus did that for a reason. We can infer a larger application because the report of scripture is that many more than the eleven did what he commanded, and they did so with the approval and collaboration of the eleven. Philip baptized an Ethiopian who served the queen. He went on his way rejoicing, presumably back to Ethiopia and shared his gospel experience. If his experience was like the majority of the other episodes of water baptism then he was also indwelt with the Spirit.

Those are idioms of inclusivity in the Tanakh. When it referred to a people or the church it included the youngest to the oldest, etc

Idiomatically, it included the youngest and the oldest, not legalistically the youngest to the oldest in chronological order. Matthew 28 certainly does not impose any such order.

 

[BJ Bear]

Before their water baptism.

The necessary exception was to stop Peter's doubting of the meaning of the vision. Since there was no difference between Jew and Gentile the Gentiles were then baptized be sure they go together.

“Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,” (Act 10:17, KJVA)

In the baptism of John, the Holy Spirit was not yet given to believers. (John 7:39)

That is an equivocation based on overlooking or ignoring the immediate context of what was previously posted and what is cited above in response. Saying that the Spirit was not yet given in the sense that men in the future will sometimes not defile themselves with what comes out of his mouth is not the same thing as saying the Spirit was not yet given in absolute sense.

“38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)” (Joh 7:38-39, KJVA)

 

[BJ Bear]

I do not think that is true.

Yes, John did baptize Jesus and Jesus did tell Joh it was fitting for "all righteousness" to be filled that way, but that does not mean that is what Jesus was commanding the eleven to do. Jesus' words were not the only report God had in that event and you have gone on record stating God is the best teacher. God also saw fit to have the record of the observing Jewish leaders included in the record of John's baptism. Why was that left out? I trust you won't fall prey to pitting scripture against scripture because you've said that is erroneous. I agree.

This disagreement makes no sense to me without a context or passage. What specifically are you referring to with,

God also saw fit to have the record of the observing Jewish leaders included in the record of John's baptism. Why was that left out?

Whatever that might be how is it left out of what?

This op specifically cites the "Great Commission," AND done so saying the Great Commision is "according to the prophet Daniel 7:14." I happen to agree, even though I think you're laying fast and loose with both scripture and baptism. Jesus is NOW King of all kings and Lord of all lords and it is just a matter of time (as we perceive it) before every single knee every created bends in confession of that reality. Jesus has dominion. Jesus command to the elven to go out an baptize the nations may have to do with the ritual washing occurring in water baptism but there's no reason to limit the Matthew 28 text to water baptism, or the water baptism to fulfilling all righteousness..... since Jesus already did that! Water baptism does not add righteousness to that which has already been accomplished. Such a view of scripture would pit scripture against itself, especially given what we read about baptism after Matthew 28. Appeals to Greek nuances don't change that.

Some of the words above regarding Jesus appear out of context in light of Daniel 7:14 and Matthew 28:18ff.

Here are two English translations of Daniel 7:14.

“And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:14, KJVA)

““And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:14, NASB)

Did you intend to substantively write that the discipling of all peoples by baptizing and teaching in Matt 28 is not that all peoples, tribes, or nations should or might serve Him?

I agree, as long as it is acknowledged those words were in fact spoken explicitly to the eleven, and not all the other disciples existing at that time, and Jesus did that for a reason. We can infer a larger application because the report of scripture is that many more than the eleven did what he commanded, and they did so with the approval and collaboration of the eleven. Philip baptized an Ethiopian who served the queen. He went on his way rejoicing, presumably back to Ethiopia and shared his gospel experience. If his experience was like the majority of the other episodes of water baptism then he was also indwelt with the Spirit.

Re: the eleven and the commission, is that a difference that makes a difference?

Idiomatically, it included the youngest and the oldest, not legalistically the youngest to the oldest in chronological order. Matthew 28 certainly does not impose any such order.

It appears that the above is an affirmation to what was previously posted.

If not then in KJV terms a suckling in reference to a people is about as young as one get.

 

[Fred]

The necessary exception

There are no clear-cut cases where a Gentile was ever said to receive the Holy Spirit after their water baptism.

That is an equivocation based on overlooking or ignoring the immediate context of what was previously posted and what is cited above in response. Saying that the Spirit was not yet given in the sense that men in the future will sometimes not defile themselves with what comes out of his mouth is not the same thing as saying the Spirit was not yet given in absolute sense.

No, it isn't.
The baptism they received did not impart the Holy Spirit. The case of the Gentiles in Acts 10 shows that their reception of the Spirit does not depend on being water baptized.

 

[Josheb]

This disagreement makes no sense to me without a context or passage. What specifically are you referring to with,

Whatever that might be how is it left out of what?

The biblical record shows the Jewish leaders refusing to be baptized, and doing so because they did not believe it necessary due to their lineage. Why did you leave that out? That is just as much a part of the record of baptism as Jesus' submission.

Some of the words above regarding Jesus appear out of context in light of Daniel 7:14 and Matthew 28:18ff.

Here are two English translations of Daniel 7:14.

“And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:14, KJVA)

““And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:14, NASB)

Did you intend to substantively write that the discipling of all peoples by baptizing and teaching in Matt 28 is not that all peoples, tribes, or nations should or might serve Him?

What is the difference between "all people," and "all peoples"?

I am intending to better understand your position in this op. Am I to understand you readl Danieal 7:14 to teach everyone everywhere who has ever lived will eventually be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Re: the eleven and the commission, is that a difference that makes a difference?

Maybe. If those words spoken only to the eleven and not intended by Jesus to apply to anyone else then that was a temporal command, one that was limited to the duration of their lifetime. You and I may agree the command extends to all Christians but our believing it does not make the belief true. Have you ever studied the words "nation" and "nations" as the Bible uses them? The two are not words used very often in scripture. The NAS has them used less than two dozen times, only a small few of them having to do with something other than the "nation" of Israel, and they never refer specifically to what we would nowadays call countries or geo-political nation states. In the Bible the term is used as a reference to ethnicity, geographic boundaries. If what I have just said is correct (and I invite you to verify it) then the Daniel and Matthew texts we're discussing could and should be read to say, "all ethnicities," not be construed with the modern meaning of "nations" as geo-political nation-states. Furthermore, since the word "world" does not always mean the whole world, the whole earth, or the entire planet earth in the Bible we should take care not to think "all nations" means the entire world but is instead a reference to the known world at that time when Jesus spoke those words. God certainly knows the Roman world was not the whole world but that does not change the fact sometimes God meant "known world," not "whole world" in our modern understanding of the term. Our shared belief the command applies to all Christians is inferential, and we should always be cautious about any inferences we make with scripture.

So, yes, the fact Jesus' words were spoken specifically to the eleven and not all the disciples might be important, and critically so.

It appears that the above is an affirmation to what was previously posted.

Maybe. I read nothing in scripture to say there is an order to be applied to baptism based on age. If you think that is a requirement to which there must be rigid adherence, then I'm going to dissent.

If not then in KJV terms a suckling in reference to a people is about as young as one get.

Relevance? Where is the evidence a suckling had to be the first person baptized in a household? That the suckling absolutely and necessarily had to be baptized prior to his or her father or mother and any breach of the chronological order was a violation of baptism's rules?

Or have I misunderstood the posts, because they read as if you are saying age is a specified criterion?

 

[BJ Bear]

There are no clear-cut cases where a Gentile was ever said to receive the Holy Spirit after their water baptism.

Whether a person believes what you claim, or not, it is the clear promise of Scripture that the baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, etc

No, it isn't.

If it isn't then why are you avoiding the provided immediate context?

The baptism they received did not impart the Holy Spirit.

How do you know? Did you intend to substantively write that the promise of God are false?

If not then consider the disciples who received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them, John 20:22. Did that reception of the Holy Spirit preclude or exclude their reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? The obvious answer is no, it did not.

The case of the Gentiles in Acts 10 shows that their reception of the Spirit does not depend on being water baptized.

God isn't dependent on the means of grace which He has given and commanded to the baptized disciples of Christ to administer to all people's, the means of the word alone and the word and the water, that is, baptism. But He is faithful to what He promises in those means.

On the other hand, God is absolutely not dependent on how sinners imagine God should or does work.

 

[Fred]

the baptized will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

This took place with the Gentiles (Acts 10:45) before their water baptism (Acts 10:48).

 

[American Gothic]

at Jesus' baptism-

John (a Zadok) baptized Him into priesthood
the Father spoke, conferring on Him the Kingship
the Holy Spirit came upon Him, for prophetic ministry

the parts of being a Melchizedek were put back together
Prophet/Priest/King

and being an eternal Person, and there being no age limit in that order
He will be and do that Forever

Ancient Order of Melchizedek: Johnson Th.D., ken: 9798667898436: Amazon.com: Books

Ancient Order of Melchizedek [Johnson Th.D., ken] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Ancient Order of Melchizedek

www.amazon.com

 

[Gary Mac]

Most Christians think of God as the best teacher. Jesus is God incarnate so He is the best teacher. The Holy Spirit, God, is the best teacher as is the Father.

The Holy Spirit, or better put, the mind of God, is the Father.

Since that is so, and there is no opposition, for your convenience, here is what Jesus told some unbelievers. Jesus said to them that John came to them in the way of justification or righteousness.

(The way of justification or righteous in which John came was the way of justification or righteousness for Jesus because He is a true man who came to bare the sins of the world. This is what Jesus meant when He told John that He being baptized by him was to fulfill all justification or righteousness.

When John did baptize Jesus what happened? The Holy Spirit descended upon Him as a dove and the Father said, This is my Son in whom I am well pleased. An obvious takeaway from the baptism of Jesus is that the one God is not in disagreement or opposition to His baptism and the baptism given by God to John to administer.)

Actually that is a mistranslation, Here is what it says. Like a dove ,not as a dove.

10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately hesawthe heavens being torn openand the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

Jesus also told those same unbelievers that the publicans and harlots who believed John enter the kingdom of God before them. That verb, "enter," is a present tense indicative. It refers to a current and ongoing action rather than a future event and action. In short, they enter in the kingdom of God because they had been born of water and the Spirit.

The person who attempts to pit the word of God against the word of God errs.

True most see it in carnality such as like a dove instead of as a dove. They see gopd asa man instead of spirit that God is, the One who came to Jesus in Matt 3:16 and opens uo who He is and all of His heaven in that man. And He does the very same today in us all who will obey as Jesus did and receieve from God Himself. Not even Jesus could escape this fact.

The context of the passage you cited from Acts 11 is the evidence to Peter, when it first occurred, and through the witness of Peter the evidence to those whom he spoke that God has given the same gift to the Gentiles. The context of Acts 11 is not a further elucidation, correction, or refutation of what Jesus said about the baptism of John.

Yes the same Spirit God gave to Jesus in Matt 3:16 is open to anyone who will recieve Him even the gentiles got that message. It is the religious folk who cant grasp the concept of God be your own mind, or Spirit the mind is referred to. Jesus referred to his new found knowledge after Matt 3:16 as born again, a renewing of the mind to think in Gods terms instead of terms for a belief system.