I told you that baptism is when you receive your priesthood.
You see, John was the son of a priest and could be viewed as the true high-priest of Israel before God, not the one installed by men. In baptizing Christ, the mantle of high-priest was transferred from John to Christ. This is why Christ said, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." That is also why Hebrews 5:5 says, "Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." This fits back into Matt 3:17 where the voice from heaven says, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." immediately after Christ's baptism.
With that example of Christ receiving his priesthood at his baptism, it is an easy extension to see that when we as believers follow Christ in baptism, we also receive our priesthood.
That was a message to believers who may not have known that. It is a much deeper walk than the typical baptismal teaching. The Holy Spirit will lead some on that walk as He has led me. But it would require you to reconsider your 'a priori' acceptance of dispensationalism. A thing that does not appear likely, unfortunately.
"You seem to answer things as do some of the RCC lawyers who perhaps are on retainer to sit at keyboards and answer posts on threads like these (on this site and others)."
Apparently, anyone who says anything that doesn't agree with your assumed paradigm must be demonized in a manner satisfactory to that paradigm. It's a small circle your thoughts run in but apparently it works for you.
"Some of them, too, claim to offer something without ever really exposing themselves by explaining what they are or what they believe, or providing Scriptures for what they say they are presenting to people who would be interested in what they have to say. They, too, love words like "parse," and "a priori," etc., just like attorneys."
Perhaps it is only those whom you disagree with that are a threat to you and you feel that the sooner you make accusations against them, the more secure your paradigm. It's really only a desperate effort to preserve your 'a priori' beliefs.
Good luck.
I-Gather-From-Extension-And-Toss-It-In-My-Blender Anti-Defamation Organization?
Or is it . . .
The-Lord-Has-Led-Me-In-A-Deeper-Walk-Than-Anyone-Else Anti-Defamation Society?
Where is a cross reference conferring High Priesthood on John the Baptist? Elijah was not a high priest, and John came in the spirit and power of Elias. Do you also merely gather this from "easy extension?"
It would be a more logical "extension," since John was a prophet, that at baptism, the Lord was anointed as Prophet.
It would be a more logical "extension" that on the Mount of Transfiguration, where you have both Elias AND the Prophet who Anointed Aaron, Moses, that THAT is where Christ received His anointing as Priest.
In fact, we do not deny that every believer enjoys individual priesthood, and that (is only one thing that) "parses" us from Roman Catholicism. But it was not through water that we received it, but rather through His Death Baptism at the Cross, dying with Him, then being Raised with Him, which did not happen by water.
There is no water in Romans chapter 6, in the entire chapter. It must be read into the passage by water regen. folks, Catholics, Landmark Baptists, and others. There is no water in Colossian 2:12; There is no water in Galatians 2:20; etc.
You come on to a clearly marked CAUCUS thread, giving its intention for King James Bible-believers, and utterly direspect it. Since I have seen so many rebuked by moderators and others for doing the same on Catholic, Reformed, and other threads, you should be rebuked for it here.
If your intention was to lead others into some deeper walk you profess to have through some kind of water-gained priesthood, and believed that those on this thread would be interested, you would have been wiser to introduce that "deeper walk" by using private replies until the original poster considered a valididty in your position and made an invitation to you, opening it up to people who support their contentions (and you do like to be contentious) with other versions of the Bible.
And you come on a caucus thread with an attack, and continue it. Not wise.