Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Behold]

Lol....Jerome, who mistranslated the Latin text?

Yes.

The reason you are involved in "penance" is because Jerome mistranslated "repentance" as "penance".
So you never had to do this, except the CC followed Jerome's mistranslation., even till today.
This is one of the mistranslations along with "Born again BY WATER", that Jerome created = that caused Martin Luther, who was also a Translator, to leave the CC as fast as he could get out of it.
He realized that Jerome sort of made up theology, and he refused to accept it, and could not stay in a "cult of Mary" that didn't care.
And they still dont care.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi Cadyand Zoe,

No, I do not think that Jesus was implying that He was born again when he was baptized. What He was doing was setting the example for us to follow when he was water baptized by John and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him. Right after that he answered Nicodemus's question on how WE are to be born again. His answer was thru water and Spirit. Right after that he and his Apostles went out and baptized.

He first SHOWED us how to be born again and then he TOLD us how to be born again and then he and the Apostles went out and practiced what they preached by performing water baptisms.

I don't believe Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to descend upon him when he was water baptized. Do you?

Mary

What, specifically, was our example? Why would Jesus NEED to set an example for his followers if his followers were already getting baptized? Also, wouldn't Jesus say something like "see what I am doing? I want you to do the same thing."

Did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he had to be born again? Isn't it possible that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he was already born again?

With regard to the Holy Spirit, I don't think Jesus "needed" the Holy Spirit to fall on him. Rather, according to John, the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Good questions CadyandZoe,

I must reiterate the most important part of my post: There are very few biblical verses that have been strictly defined by The Church that members can not stray from. What that statement means is that there are some verses in the bible that are dogma. Or to put it a different way....they are Undeniable truths! A catholic cannot stray from those truths (dogma) of the teachings of The Church and claim to be catholic.

I hope that clarifies things.

respectfully, mary

thanks Mary.

 

[MatthewG]

No Matthew, I don't agree with your limited context interpretation of Scripture in regard to water baptism.

Do you think you should follow the examples of Jesus? If you say NO, then you won't get dunked under water like he did. If you say yes then you will be dunked under water like he was. What happens if we don't follow His example?

Yup, you can wash your body all day long, but it will never clean you like Jesus OR water baptism will. Did you forget about this passage Matthew: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

No one said you had to take my interpretation. Therefore you may freely have yours. I don’t mind if people get water baptized but I don’t believe that is what really changes a person like when they receive the Holy Spirit.

“Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we boast on the hope of the glory of God. And not only [so], but we also boast in the tribulations, knowing that the tribulation doth work endurance; and the endurance, experience; and the experience, hope; and the hope doth not make ashamed, because the love of God hath been poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that hath been given to us. For in our being still ailing, Christ in due time did die for the impious; for scarcely for a righteous man will any one die, for for the good man perhaps some one also doth dare to die; and God doth commend His own love to us, that, in our being still sinners, Christ did die for us; much more, then, having been declared righteous now in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath; for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. And not only [so], but we are also boasting in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we did receive the reconciliation; because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming. But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many; and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of ‘Righteous,’ for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one — Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of ‘Righteous’ [it is] to all men to justification of life; for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous. And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound, that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭1‬-‭21‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

Romans 5:1-21 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we | Young's Literal Translation 1898

Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we

bible.com

 

[Marymog]

No one said you had to take my interpretation. Therefore you may freely have yours. I don’t mind if people get water baptized but I don’t believe that is what really changes a person like when they receive the Holy Spirit.

When one is baptized they recieved the Holy Spirit.....Just like scripture says: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Like I said, I don't agree with your limited context interpretation of Scripture in regard to water baptism.

 

[Marymog]

What, specifically, was our example? Why would Jesus NEED to set an example for his followers if his followers were already getting baptized? Also, wouldn't Jesus say something like "see what I am doing? I want you to do the same thing."

THE example was Him getting baptized with Scripture further saying:

Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Baptize all in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit....

THAT is the "I want you to do the same thing".


Furthermore, nowhere at no time does Scripture say His disciples were getting baptized BEFORE He was baptized. The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized.

He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Right AFTER Jesus was baptized with water and the Spirit descended upon him he told Nicodemus that one is born of water and Spirit. Right after that he and his Apostles went out and baptized. When he ascended into heaven He said baptize all. Scripture makes it clear in Acts 2:38 that when one is water baptized they receive the gift of the holy spirit.

 

[Marymog]

Did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he had to be born again? Isn't it possible that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he was already born again?

Yes, Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again! John 3:1-21 makes it clear that he was NOT telling Nicodemus that "he was already born again".

 

[Marymog]

With regard to the Holy Spirit, I don't think Jesus "needed" the Holy Spirit to fall on him. Rather, according to John, the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke.

If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom He spoke of then why did God follow up by saying, “This is my Son, the one I love. I am very pleased with him.” There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

Does oil heal you? James 5:14

Did Jesus need to use spit and dirt to heal? John 9:6

Did the shadow of Peter heal? Acts 5:15

Does the water from baptism save us?

No to all those questions. So why does God use these things?

 

[Marymog]

Yes.

The reason you are involved in "penance" is because Jerome mistranslated "repentance" as "penance".
So you never had to do this, except the CC followed Jerome's mistranslation., even till today.
This is one of the mistranslations along with "Born again BY WATER", that Jerome created = that caused Martin Luther, who was also a Translator, to leave the CC as fast as he could get out of it.
He realized that Jerome sort of made up theology, and he refused to accept it, and could not stay in a "cult of Mary" that didn't care.
And they still dont care.

 

[MatthewG]

okay @Marymog. That would be the case considering the Gospel being the power of God unto salvation.

 

[Illuminator]

If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom He spoke of then why did God follow up by saying, “This is my Son, the one I love. I am very pleased with him.” There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

Does oil heal you? James 5:14

Did Jesus need to use spit and dirt to heal? John 9:6

Did the shadow of Peter heal? Acts 5:15

Does the water from baptism save us?

No to all those questions. So why does God use these things?

Physical matter, with proper form and disposition, conveys grace. This is evident in all your points.
The Gnostics and Donatists believed all physical matter was evil, which included humans.
Some Christians have the erroneous notion that nothing on this earth can be holy; not water, oil, bread or wine.

 

[Illuminator]

okay @Marymog. That would be the case considering the Gospel being the power of God unto salvation.

Agreed. Baptism is the Gospel in action. An initiation. But like they say at the opera house, "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings".

Scripture obviously uses a lot of metaphorical language (as all agree). Jesus’ parables are a clear example of that. Thus, one must consult context, the original Greek, and related cross-references in order to make a determination in any given instance. Christians come down in different camps on the question of baptismal regeneration: even among those (Protestants) who claim that Scripture is
1) always clear in matters of salvation (“perspicuous”) and that
2) it is the only infallible and final authority in theological matters (sola Scriptura).

Thus, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism and Lutheranism, believed in baptismal regeneration, and followed Catholic tradition in that regard. John Calvin, equally or even more influential as an early Protestant leader, did not.

Catholics also think Christian tradition going all the way back to Jesus is relevant. Tradition is the “democracy of the dead,” as Chesterton so wonderfully described it. We find, of course, that baptismal regeneration was a unanimous position among the Church fathers [link one / two / three / four]. It’s illuminating to also consult the Church fathers to see how they interpreted particular passages. In the first link we can see that several interpreted John 3:5 precisely as Catholics today do (baptismal regeneration): Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and John Damascene.

Surely, this is noteworthy. How could so many great teachers of Christianity in the early Church get it totally wrong? Protestants go ultimately by Scripture alone, yet both Luther and Calvin claimed that their views were closely aligned with that of the fathers, and more so than Catholicism. They were particularly fond of Augustine, and claimed him as their “own.”

John 3:5 And Titus 3:5: Proofs For Baptismal Regeneration?

The belief on baptismal regeneration was unified until the 16th century. We Catholics yield to the wisdom of doctrine passed down by apostolic succession.

www.patheos.com

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again! John 3:1-21 makes it clear that he was NOT telling Nicodemus that "he was already born again".

Yes, he was. If we follow the progression of thoughts through the conversation, we conclude that, indeed, Nicodemus was born again.

1. Nicodemus remarks that Jesus' miracles demonstrate that God is with him.
2. Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can recognize (as Nicodemus did) the kingdom of God unless he is born again.
3. Therefore, Nicodemus is born again.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom He spoke of then why did God follow up by saying, “This is my Son, the one I love. I am very pleased with him.” There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

I don't understand the question. Are you doubting John's testimony? He tells you explicitly about the signal.

Let us have a look at Luke 3:21-22,

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.”​

​

I take note of the fact that Jesus' baptism took place while a crowd of people watched. The dove landing on Jesus was a sign for John, but the voice from heave was verbal confirmation from the Father.

In John's first letter he mentions that the voice of the Father confirmed the sonship of Jesus audibly three times during his ministry.

1John 5:5-9 -- speaking about God's testimony John writes.

Who is the one who overcomes the world, but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. ​

Three times, the Father spoke from heaven saying "this is my beloved son."
The Spirit = At the baptism of Jesus
The Water = (cloud) At the transfiguration
The blood = At the resurrection (See Romans 1:4

Does oil heal you? James 5:14

Did Jesus need to use spit and dirt to heal? John 9:6

Did the shadow of Peter heal? Acts 5:15

Does the water from baptism save us?

No to all those questions. So why does God use these things?

People don't believe words. They need to be shown.

 

[Marymog]

I don't understand the question. Are you doubting John's testimony? He tells you explicitly about the signal.

Let us have a look at Luke 3:21-22,

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.”​

​

I take note of the fact that Jesus' baptism took place while a crowd of people watched. The dove landing on Jesus was a sign for John, but the voice from heave was verbal confirmation from the Father.

In John's first letter he mentions that the voice of the Father confirmed the sonship of Jesus audibly three times during his ministry.

1John 5:5-9 -- speaking about God's testimony John writes.

Who is the one who overcomes the world, but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. ​

Three times, the Father spoke from heaven saying "this is my beloved son."
The Spirit = At the baptism of Jesus
The Water = (cloud) At the transfiguration
The blood = At the resurrection (See Romans 1:4



People don't believe words. They need to be shown.

Good morning CadyandZoe,

I have never contested that passage from Luke that said all the people were baptized. In post 1,066 I said, "The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized." The people that were baptized by John were not baptized into Christ because the Apostles hadn't started baptizing anyone yet. It was later, after his conversation with Nicodemus, that we see them going out and baptizing in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Acts 19:1-5 makes it clear that those that were baptized under John had to be rebaptized.

I NEVER said that I 'doubted John's testimony'!!!! Me telling you that you are wrong about there being only one signal to John during Jesus baptism is not me doubting John's testimony. It is me telling you that you have accidently or intentionally left off the 2nd "signal" from God.

------------------

How is it you don't understand my question?

Here is what you said: "...the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke."

Here was my response (question): "If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John......There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

That means there were TWO signals to John AND to all those standing around the Jordan river. The first signal was the dove (Holy Spirit) descending upon Jesus and the second signal was God's voice.

With that said it appears we both agree that Jesus did NOT need the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, to descend upon Him. However, I would contend that the people standing around the Jordan river that day needed a visible sign in the form of a dove (1st signal) and a voice from heaven (2nd signal). You are contending that John needed the signal. I contend that that you are wrong and that CLEARLY John the Baptist did NOT need those signals for he already knew who Jesus was:

John the Baptist came, preaching...saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Looking at those passages makes it clear that your "signal to John" interpretation of Scripture does not match up with what is written on two basis: There were 2 signals (not one) AND John didn't need the signals because he already knew who Jesus was!!!

Bible study Mary

 

[Marymog]

Yes, he was. If we follow the progression of thoughts through the conversation, we conclude that, indeed, Nicodemus was born again.

1. Nicodemus remarks that Jesus' miracles demonstrate that God is with him.
2. Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can recognize (as Nicodemus did) the kingdom of God unless he is born again.
3. Therefore, Nicodemus is born again.

One vs destroys your interpretation: “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

 

[Marymog]

People don't believe words. They need to be shown.

We agree....

 

[Ritajanice]

John 3:1-21

English Standard Version

​

You Must Be Born Again​

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus[a] by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’ 8 The wind[e] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[g] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.[h]


Being Born Again ,is the Spiritual birth, the second birth/ regenerated...which only God can do, through the name of Jesus...much more to it than that.....you must be Born Again to see the Kingdom of God...

 

[CadyandZoe]

Good morning CadyandZoe,

I have never contested that passage from Luke that said all the people were baptized. In post 1,066 I said, "The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized." The people that were baptized by John were not baptized into Christ because the Apostles hadn't started baptizing anyone yet. It was later, after his conversation with Nicodemus, that we see them going out and baptizing in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Acts 19:1-5 makes it clear that those that were baptized under John had to be rebaptized.

I NEVER said that I 'doubted John's testimony'!!!! Me telling you that you are wrong about there being only one signal to John during Jesus baptism is not me doubting John's testimony. It is me telling you that you have accidently or intentionally left off the 2nd "signal" from God.

------------------

How is it you don't understand my question?

Here is what you said: "...the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke."

Here was my response (question): "If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John......There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

That means there were TWO signals to John AND to all those standing around the Jordan river. The first signal was the dove (Holy Spirit) descending upon Jesus and the second signal was God's voice.

With that said it appears we both agree that Jesus did NOT need the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, to descend upon Him. However, I would contend that the people standing around the Jordan river that day needed a visible sign in the form of a dove (1st signal) and a voice from heaven (2nd signal). You are contending that John needed the signal. I contend that that you are wrong and that CLEARLY John the Baptist did NOT need those signals for he already knew who Jesus was:

John the Baptist came, preaching...saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Looking at those passages makes it clear that your "signal to John" interpretation of Scripture does not match up with what is written on two basis: There were 2 signals (not one) AND John didn't need the signals because he already knew who Jesus was!!!

Bible study Mary

THE example was Him getting baptized with Scripture further saying:

Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

Mary,
We interpret each verse from within the context of the passage where it appears. In the statement above, we understand that the example is Christ's suffering. We suffer in the way he suffered, i.e. resolving his will to obey the father even unto death.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

This statement comes from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. And although it is the first verse of chapter 11, I believe the context is the final verses of chapter 10

1Corinthians 10:31-33
31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God. 32 Do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God; 33 just as I also please everyone in all things, not seeking my own benefit but the benefit of the many, so that they may be saved.

To be an imitator of Paul, and therefore Jesus, we ought to do all things for the glory of God; do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God; and seek the benefit of the many so that they might be saved.

Maybe Baptism is one way to obey Paul's exhortation. But he didn't mention Baptism explicitly. Paul seems focused on issues that are more important and significant such as: goodwill, self-sacrifice, and working for the glory of God.

Baptize all in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit....

THAT is the "I want you to do the same thing".

Bear in mind that Christ didn't baptize anyone. (John 4:2) His disciples did however. So if we were to follow his example, we would not baptize anyone. But the apostles baptize at the command of Jesus, which is why he says, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Furthermore, nowhere at no time does Scripture say His disciples were getting baptized BEFORE He was baptized. The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized.

He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Right AFTER Jesus was baptized with water and the Spirit descended upon him he told Nicodemus that one is born of water and Spirit. Right after that he and his Apostles went out and baptized. When he ascended into heaven He said baptize all. Scripture makes it clear in Acts 2:38 that when one is water baptized they receive the gift of the holy spirit.

John draws a sharp contrast between his own baptism and that of Jesus Christ. Yes? John tells us that he baptizes with water. But in as much as Jesus Christ is mightier than John, Jesus Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.

I'm not arguing against water baptism. I am reacting to your observation, which is valid in my opinion, that we ought to follow his example. Yes, we SHOULD follow his example. But since Jesus didn't water baptize anyone, baptizing in the Holy Spirit Instead, then how can we follow his example, since none of us can baptize in the Holy Spirit.

See what I mean?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Good morning CadyandZoe,

I have never contested that passage from Luke that said all the people were baptized. In post 1,066 I said, "The followers of John the Baptist were getting baptized." The people that were baptized by John were not baptized into Christ because the Apostles hadn't started baptizing anyone yet. It was later, after his conversation with Nicodemus, that we see them going out and baptizing in the name of Christ. Furthermore, Acts 19:1-5 makes it clear that those that were baptized under John had to be rebaptized.

I NEVER said that I 'doubted John's testimony'!!!! Me telling you that you are wrong about there being only one signal to John during Jesus baptism is not me doubting John's testimony. It is me telling you that you have accidently or intentionally left off the 2nd "signal" from God.

------------------

How is it you don't understand my question?

Here is what you said: "...the Father caused the spirit to fall on Jesus as a signal to John that Jesus is the one of whom he spoke."

Here was my response (question): "If the spirit falling upon Jesus in the visible form of a dove was a signal to John......There would be no need for God to say that if the descent of the dove upon Jesus was THE very clear signal.

That means there were TWO signals to John AND to all those standing around the Jordan river. The first signal was the dove (Holy Spirit) descending upon Jesus and the second signal was God's voice.

With that said it appears we both agree that Jesus did NOT need the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, to descend upon Him. However, I would contend that the people standing around the Jordan river that day needed a visible sign in the form of a dove (1st signal) and a voice from heaven (2nd signal). You are contending that John needed the signal. I contend that that you are wrong and that CLEARLY John the Baptist did NOT need those signals for he already knew who Jesus was:

John the Baptist came, preaching...saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Looking at those passages makes it clear that your "signal to John" interpretation of Scripture does not match up with what is written on two basis: There were 2 signals (not one) AND John didn't need the signals because he already knew who Jesus was!!!

Bible study Mary

One vs destroys your interpretation: “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

I don't see your point. Just because Nicodemus didn't understand the concept of being baptized in the Spirit, doesn't mean that he wasn't baptized in the Spirit. Right? The fact that Nicodemus WAS baptized in the Spirit is the reason why Jesus raised the subject. Jesus was helping Nicodemus understand his own experience, which involved divine intervention and enlightenment. Had Nicodemus NOT correctly interpreted the works of Jesus, then it would be doubtful that God the Father was working inwardly in Nicodemus.