Mark's Gospel, now known to have been the first New Testament gospel to be written, portrays Jesus as an ordinary person adopted by God at his baptism. Thus, the baptism and the subsequent temptation in the wilderness were essential before Jesus commenced his mission. In this Gospel, Jesus is not sinless, as he tells the disciples in Mark 10:18: "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
The later gospels were based on Mark's original, and the evangelists struggled to explain the baptism. Matthew 3:14 has John argue with Jesus that he should not be baptised, with Jesus insisting. John's gospel alludes to the baptism, but avoids an actual description of the event.
This was never instituted by Jesus Christ but is a church custom that has developed since.
Because then christians might be able to picture him doing all the things he did but some of those deads are quite sad and he gets hurt/injured. Also it might make you think about him on the cross being crucified. And that is not good to picture someone being crucified! (alternate answer) Given that Jesus was never photographed during his lifetime and did not have his portrait painted, and the New Testament does not include any description of his appearance, we have no way of knowing what Jesus looked like, and since we don't know, we guess. If it were for some reason important to know exactly what Jesus looked like, presumably Jesus would have arranged for this knowledge to be available.
Joseph, like Jesus, in secular society would have borne his fathers name. Jesus would have been known as "Jesus ben-Joseph." Since, however, the geneology of Jesus is slightly cloudy, once one gets past Joseph, Josephs name may have been Joseph ben-Jacob or Joseph ben-Heli.
Width since the nerves are on the outside.
Before He is born, He knows all about Christianity. Since He was young, He is a Christian. Remember, Jesus is truly 100 percent Man and 100 percent God. That is why He have power, He can heal, etc. and also, he can need thirst and hunger, whenever he is.
Based on the KJVB, I have not seen anything that would have explicitly indicated that Jesus had kissed Mary Magdaline.
Since Jesus was the sinless Son of God, then His ministry would be balanced, whatever that means. Probably whoever decides what they mean by the word 'balanced' may decide otherwise, which they are certainly free to do. However, Jesus Himself is probably the best judge of whether His ministry is balanced or not, since He knows better than we do what is required to be done.
We are not told that He did directly, however the following passage may shed some light on it:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) Thus it appears that Jesus 'delegated' the actual performance of the rites of baptism to His disciples. So, in one sense He did, because people would have been baptized as His followers. Bit in another sense He didn't, since He didn't actually perform the Baptisms.
Bethlehem is a significant place in Christianity since baby Jesus was born there.
You should be water baptized according the the Scriptures. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus declares that one should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Since Matthew is just the first book of the New Testament, we need to journey in the remaining books to discover the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We find that the name is Jesus, hence we must water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ which is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. To be water baptized declaring "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is based on man's tradition and has no Scriptural backing. However, to be baptized declaring, "in the name of Jesus Christ" is based on divine revelation and does have Scriptural backing. The disciples and followers of Jesus had no problem interpreting Matthew 28:19. How did they do it? There are 5 distinct places in the book of Acts where water baptism was commanded, or had been performed in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16 A VERY IMPORTANT FACT! THERE IS NOT A SINGLE SCRIPTURE GIVEN IN THE ENTIRE WORD OF GOD WHERE ANYONE WAS EVER WATER BAPTIZED DECLARING "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY GHOST."
Roman Catholic AnswerThat depends on how "old" you want to get. Originally, Jesus was baptized in the Jordon river. We know that the apostles baptized, and they baptized people where they found them, so they could not all have been in the Jordon river. They were no doubt baptized in the town where they were converted, wherever the Mass and other religious services where held. Since the establishment of Churches - which would have been after the Christians came out of the catacombs in the 4th century, they have used dedicated baptismal fonts in their Churches.
he wrote it in "Why God Became Man"
I'm guessing so since he's Catholic.
No, because the Trinity was unknown to men at that time, since Jesus the Son was first revealed at that time, and the Holy Spirit had not come upon men until Pentecost (except for certain holy men at various times). John the Baptist baptized men for repentance of sin (which Jesus had no sin but stated that He was doing this as an example of what He wanted His followers to do). God the Father spoke from heaven at His baptism and revealed that He was pleased in Jesus His Son.
Jesus, since He was God had no fears.
Well, if you have children on earth they are not waiting to come down from heaven, since they have already come down from heaven. Nobody can be a Mormon without being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which could not happen without their knowledge and consent. So - no, unless your children were baptized Mormons, they are not Mormons.
Since Jesus died, there have been 2011 Easter Sundays.