Cougarbear
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2022
- 9,423
- 4,218
I'm living in the United States of America where English is spoken. You can speak what ever you want. I know that my Redeemer lives and that is Jesus the Christ.Redeemer in Hebrew is what word?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm living in the United States of America where English is spoken. You can speak what ever you want. I know that my Redeemer lives and that is Jesus the Christ.Redeemer in Hebrew is what word?
See there's your problem.I'm living in the United States of America where English is spoken. You can speak what ever you want. I know that my Redeemer lives and that is Jesus the Christ.
See there's your problem.
You can take a name and interpret that name as it's meaning in English, and totally change the meaning of the scripture and lose the message, whereby one such mistake can lose the world.
And vice versa, you can take a meaning of a term and make it a name and anthropromorphize a simple phrase and create a new non existing character and false devotion out of that mistake and have people pray to a word.-oops
You have a different take. It is not mine, and it is not my own experience. But then God meets each of us where we are. And, since I am getting the impression you may be of the LDS faith, it is best we do not continue the subject of baptism. The LDS practice of baptism has angered me like no other.The person performing the ordinance of baptism has the gift of the Holy Ghost to perform the baptism. But, a separate ordinance has to be given by one who has authority to give the Gift of the Holy Ghost to the newly baptized person. It doesn't happen at the same time. John the Baptist explained this. And, as I've mentioned, there were people that had received the Holy Ghost who had not been baptized. They are separate ordinances done by the holy priesthood.
To be historically correct Nazareth did not yet exist until it was built by Roman orders to it's military around 90ad. As per archeological found letters to the soldiers. The word Hanotzrim meaning "offshoot" (cult) or Nazarei (guardians of the testament aka Nazarene) was probably confused for a Nazarite (person from Nazareth).
Nazarene never meant person from Nazareth.
The NT character is said to be from Capernaum (his hometown it says) not Nazareth that did not yet exist.
Maybe they play bait and switch on the Hometown, because it was liken to Soddom:
Matthew 4:13
Matthew 11:23
Matthew 17:24
Mark 1:21,2:1 etc
You have to read it in the Tanakh not the NT, in Hebrew it's the wrong gender to be about a town (person from a town is capitalized as well)Numbers chapter 6 ...
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of aNazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.
7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.
8 All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD.
9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.
10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
etc etc etc ...
I think you fell down a rabbit hole ... maybe not seeing the Bible as a whole ...
See how verse 5 makes haircuts a SIN ... why Christ had long hair and a beard ... why don't all Christians? ...
I don't have the problem. You do. You have been deceived by the deceiver. You are attempting to interpret words from thousands of years ago based on your knowledge and beliefs of today. Nothing new. Geologists do it. Archeologists do it. Evolutionists do it. Everyone does it. You end up with many sects or synagogues, and 40,000 Christian churches with different understandings, interpretations, doctrines and beliefs. Same things happened in the days of the Prophets as well. Also, in the days of Christ and the Apostles. People came up with their own interpretations and stoned the Prophets and Apostles. Even killed their Lord and Savior. But, what is needed, a Prophet today. With all the dissenting interpretations, we need a Prophet. I follow one. He is the messenger from God that teaches truth.See there's your problem.
You can take a name and interpret that name as it's meaning in English, and totally change the meaning of the scripture and lose the message, whereby one such mistake can lose the world.
And vice versa, you can take a meaning of a term and make it a name and anthropromorphize a simple phrase and create a new non existing character and false devotion out of that mistake and have people pray to a word.-oops
Why would baptism anger anyone? We take a person down into the water, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. What on earth would anger you about this?You have a different take. It is not mine, and it is not my own experience. But then God meets each of us where we are. And, since I am getting the impression you may be of the LDS faith, it is best we do not continue the subject of baptism. The LDS practice of baptism has angered me like no other.
Do you always have the consent of the person being baptized? For example, ever baptize a life-long Catholic after their passing? Without even bothering to check first with--or notify--surviving children?Why would baptism anger anyone? We take a person down into the water, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. What on earth would anger you about this?
Dan 10:21 disagrees with you.I don't have the problem. You do. You have been deceived by the deceiver. You are attempting to interpret words from thousands of years ago based on your knowledge and beliefs of today. Nothing new. Geologists do it. Archeologists do it. Evolutionists do it. Everyone does it. You end up with many sects or synagogues, and 40,000 Christian churches with different understandings, interpretations, doctrines and beliefs. Same things happened in the days of the Prophets as well. Also, in the days of Christ and the Apostles. People came up with their own interpretations and stoned the Prophets and Apostles. Even killed their Lord and Savior. But, what is needed, a Prophet today. With all the dissenting interpretations, we need a Prophet. I follow one. He is the messenger from God that teaches truth.
Yes, we always have the consent of the person we are baptizing. Even children at the age of 8. They are asked specifically and without force. My grandchildren live with us. When each reached 8 years of eight, they had missionaries give them lessons just like an adult. They were asked if they wanted to be baptized, just like we do with adults. Then, we ask them if they have a person in mind to baptize them. I baptized both of mine. Do you have the consent of the baby you baptize without checking with them first? Nope. So, why do you have a problem with baptism for the dead. Especially since Paul asked "Why do you baptize for the dead if the dead do not rise. Else, why do you baptize for the dead?" What happened? Why did Catholics do away with this ordinance?Do you always have the consent of the person being baptized? For example, ever baptize a life-long Catholic after their passing? Without even bothering to check first with--or notify--surviving children?
Explain why you think this disagrees with anything I said. Amos 3:7 said, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing but revealeth his secrets unto his servants the Prophets."Dan 10:21 disagrees with you.
If you baptize people after they have passed away, you do not have their consent. Later on, you say you get the consent of a close family member. You are in error. In my family, no close family member was called or notified. The names were submitted by distant LDS relatives who were working on a broad family genealogy. They never even meant the distant family members they submitted for baptism. If you knew the upset this caused my family...well, you wouldn't care. A close LDS friend who knew us certainly didn't care that we were upset.Yes, we always have the consent of the person we are baptizing. Even children at the age of 8.
How many other faiths did you teach and train your grandchildren? My children were baptized, welcomed into the Body of Christ as infants. I elected not to have them confirmed in the faith and told them I wished them to make that decision, not at the usual age of 13, but as adults. Each renewed her faith yearly. One renewed her baptismal promises in a ceremony at the Jordan River. Meanwhile, the second daughter and I have studied many faiths (including LDS). Currently the study is in Judaism.My grandchildren live with us. When each reached 8 years of eight, they had missionaries give them lessons just like an adult. They were asked if they wanted to be baptized, just like we do with adults. Then, we ask them if they have a person in mind to baptize them. I baptized both of mine. Do you have the consent of the baby you baptize without checking with them first? Nope.
Your "ordinance" was never one of the seven sacraments given by Christ. Even those who take Paul's words to mean dead people were being baptized by proxy, cannot show where Paul endorsed or approved what some were doing in Corinth.Especially since Paul asked "Why do you baptize for the dead if the dead do not rise. Else, why do you baptize for the dead?" What happened? Why did Catholics do away with this ordinance?
No. You know I have it right. But I know better than to look for repentance from you. People in your Church have flat out told me that have no regrets about baptizing my grandmother; that they will also baptize my mother; and most likely on the one year anniversary after my own death, they will baptize me. They care not one whit about my objections or my anger. I don't expect anything different from you.I guess you had it all wrong about us...
And those prophets like Ezekiel 28 warned the first (fallen)aka son of perdition messiah would fall to the pit in the heart of Rome claimed to be a god, he'd be deemed perfect(sinless) 28:16Explain why you think this disagrees with anything I said. Amos 3:7 said, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing but revealeth his secrets unto his servants the Prophets."
The law allows for distant relatives to do the work. For those ancestors who died in the Holocaust, we have an agreement that it must be a direct relative such as for me, I can do the work regardless of the objections from my brother, Aunt....Why If you baptize people after they have passed away, you do not have their consent. Later on, you say you get the consent of a close family member. You are in error. In my family, no close family member was called or notified. The names were submitted by distant LDS relatives who were working on a broad family genealogy. They never even meant the distant family members they submitted for baptism. If you knew the upset this caused my family...well, you wouldn't care. A close LDS friend who knew us certainly didn't care that we were upset.
God isn't a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into. Hence Jesus Christ.See there's your problem.
You can take a name and interpret that name as it's meaning in English, and totally change the meaning of the scripture and lose the message, whereby one such mistake can lose the world.
And vice versa, you can take a meaning of a term and make it a name and anthropromorphize a simple phrase and create a new non existing character and false devotion out of that mistake and have people pray to a word.-oops
And, I had the consent of my Grandchildren. But, you didn't have the consent of your children to be baptized as an infant. You should have waited for that too, right? Maybe they want to be in the body of some other religion rather than Catholicism. Also, it is clear that you don't have a testimony of your religion because you think it's not your responsibility to train up your child in the faith and then when they reach adulthood to let them govern themselves at that time. What if they deny Christ and the Holy Ghost because you did not teach them and help them to accept Christ and not to deny the Holy Ghost. The unpardonable sin.How many other faiths did you teach and train your grandchildren? My children were baptized, welcomed into the Body of Christ as infants. I elected not to have them confirmed in the faith and told them I wished them to make that decision, not at the usual age of 13, but as adults. Each renewed her faith yearly. One renewed her baptismal promises in a ceremony at the Jordan River. Meanwhile, the second daughter and I have studied many faiths (including LDS). Currently the study is in Judaism.
So, yes, call it after-the-fact, but I have the full consent and approval of both my daughters on all the decisions I made for them in their formative years. They regret nothing. And nor do I of the decisions my parents made for me.