It's that time of year again-the dirty forehead club

[Cougarbear]

Redeemer in Hebrew is what word?

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.

 

[HaShev]

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

 

[BreezeWood]

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

not for an original when meaningful would have had a timeless interpretation. or accompanied by a likeness.

very few and far between.

 

[Meriweather]

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.

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.

 

[ReinyDays]

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

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 a Nazarite, 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? ...

 

[HaShev]

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? ...

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)
Tanakh translated in English says:
"making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the Lord."
Does not say "Nazarite" says *nazirite*.
Look up the meaning:
*“to abstain from” or “to consecrate oneself to”, among the ancient Hebrews, a sacred person whose separation was most commonly distinguished by his uncut hair and his abstinence from wine.
Which helps validate my comment about changing a word with meaning into a name thus changing the interpretation.

 

[Cougarbear]

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

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.

 

[Cougarbear]

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.

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?

 

[Meriweather]

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?

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?

 

[HaShev]

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.

Dan 10:21 disagrees with you.

 

[Cougarbear]

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?

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?
As far as checking with surviving children, yes we do if it's within the legal time frame of "Privacy." Only one nearest relative has to agree, unlike for children who are alive. Both parents must agree, especially when there is a divorce. Parental consent is required. When I was at BYU, a girl that I worked with was baptized on here 18th birthday in January in Lake Michigan. Why? Because her parents objected for her to be baptized when still a minor. They still objected and threatened to go to every LDS Church in the area to find her and disrupt the proceedings. So, she met the missionaries at Lake Michigan in the very cold waters of baptism. Talk about people who want to force their religion on their children. Is that like you?
I guess you had it all wrong about us... Repent?

 

[Cougarbear]

Dan 10:21 disagrees with you.

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."

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, we always have the consent of the person we are baptizing. Even children at the age of 8.

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.

 

[Meriweather]

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.

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.

 

[Meriweather]

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?

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.

The translation has always been problematic because the original "huber" has so many different variations. One of the Church Fathers notes that Paul's words are more correctly translated as "being baptized with a view to death", particularly in view of what Paul follows with--that of the suffering that he himself faces and is enabled to endure precisely because of his faith in his resurrection. In any case, baptizing in the place of the dead was never Apostolic teaching. That is something the LDS Church came up with 1800 years later.

That is interesting in itself because your book, Alma 34:35-36, it states:

“For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

 

[Meriweather]

I guess you had it all wrong about us...

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.

Every so often, I do pray that God forgives you the harm you have done, the upsets you have caused. Best I can do.

 

[HaShev]

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."

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) 28:16
He'd be called the
anointed (christ) guardian (nazarei)
-Ezekiel 28:15
Even preachers themselves tell you these verses on the son of perdition are about Lucifer the 1st and failed messiah. Who Ezekiel clues you to the secret: that he's an "image of a man", not that he existed historically as a singular figure.
The end of the Roman joke sits the punchline:
Rev 22:16 they are calling him Lucifer, Baal's son.
Baal's son is the morning star=Lucifer.
[See Lucifer here etymology of "": "[ the morning star, a fallen rebel archangel, THE Devil, fr. OE. fr. Latin, the morning star, fr. Lucifer light-bearing, fr. luc light + -fer -ferous--more at LIGHT]" (Webster's, p.677)
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (LUCIFER)rises in your hearts.” -- 2 Peter 1:19
“... from my Father. To the one who conquers(DESTROYS) I will also give the morning star(LUCIFER).” -- Revelation 2:28
· Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things in the churches.
· I am the bright and Morning Star (lucifer)
-oops

 

[Cougarbear]

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.

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....
A simple logical question: Why be upset about me doing the work if you don't believe it works? If it doesn't work, whose it bothering? I think your "upset" is bogus nonsense. If it's true, then they are blessed. Good grief!

 

[ding]

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

God isn't a mystery to be solved. God is a relationship to be entered into. Hence Jesus Christ.

 

[Cougarbear]

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.

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.
When I was at BYU, a girl who I knew from high school was there. She is Catholic. But, she was engaged to a Jew. She was rationalizing the conversion to Judaism because she was marrying a Jew. She asked me if it would be okay. I told her that there isn't a problem with marrying a Jew. But, they will demand that you deny Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to become a Jew. She tried to rationalize that the Lord would understand her denial and it would be okay. So, I reminded her that Peter denied the Lord 3 times and it was not okay. Peter truly repented but this girl would not have been so lucky to explain her deception at the judgment seat.