[metmom]

When the Bible (Matthew 3) says that John the Baptist was baptizing for the "confession of sins" and "repentence", and Jesus insisted on being baptized by John, was that because Jesus had to confess any sins, or repent of anything? Did Jesus "need" to be baptized, or was there another purpose for his choosing to do that "needless" action, and be baptized by John the Baptist?

Jesus did not "need" to be baptized and yes there was another purpose for Jesus being baptized, so it wasn't a "needless" action.

John himself explains why he came to baptize.....

John 1:29-34 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”

32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

[Heart-Rest]

Jesus did not "need" to be baptized and yes there was another purpose for Jesus being baptized, so it wasn't a "needless" action.

I know -- that's why I put those two words in quotes!

Likewise, the sacrifices at the temple were also done for a purpose -- to fulfill the requirements of the laws of the religion Mary (and Jesus) were born into. (Remember, this was long before Jesus fully built His new religion, i.e. His Church.)

Just to respond quickly to another post you had -- "born" was obviously not the key word that poster was using relating to Adam and Eve. It merely signified "brought to life" in a sinless state -- focusing on the word "born" reminds me of Bill Clinton focusing on what the meaning of the word "is" is.    :-)

(There was a larger point behind their post, and that's what should have been addressed -- not the term "born" -- that's just a frivolous distraction.)

(By the way, metmom, did you get my response to you about your "Biblegateway" New Testament search/word count for the words "Peter" and "Paul", where I told you I put in "Holy Spirit" into your search link, and it came up with far fewer "occurrences" than both Peter and Paul.    I do believe the Holy Spirit is far more important for the Church than both those guys, so I wouldn't put too much stock in those word counts.)    :-)

Until next time, take care.