RevTestament
New member
Well, as the thread got closed, I figured I might respond to a few things in a new thread. Hope I didn't offend PJ.
I pose to you that it represented being submersed in the sea of the world. It is the same type of symbolism in baptism. Before the priest had a right to enter the temple, he had to immerse in the sea. Before we have the right to partake of Christ's body of the temple, we must be baptized. Otherwise we might be damning ourselves in partaking of the sacrament of his Body - doing so in faithlessness.
May I remind you that the law of Leviticus was given after Judah, and I believe through Jesus? The law also says you cannot marry your mother or sister. Taking that to its logical conclusion, would make Jesus illegitimate no matter how one cuts the mustard since Adam's first children would apparently had to break that law making everyone illegitimate.
Quote:
.
He is saying the attitude of people to live it up because we are just going to die caused him to die daily.
Again, what were they doing then? And why was it called a sea? What is the significance of it being brass? etc.So LDS baptize in Solomon’s brazen sea, and Jesus was baptized in “living water.” I just hear a little incongruence. That’s because the OT priests weren’t baptizing the Israelites in that brazen sea.
I pose to you that it represented being submersed in the sea of the world. It is the same type of symbolism in baptism. Before the priest had a right to enter the temple, he had to immerse in the sea. Before we have the right to partake of Christ's body of the temple, we must be baptized. Otherwise we might be damning ourselves in partaking of the sacrament of his Body - doing so in faithlessness.
Actually, the apostles received the gift of the Holy Ghost when Christ breathed on them.My impression is baptism by fire inspired ancestral delineation, “division” (Luke 12:49, 50, 51, 52, 53). What is the LDS impression of the “division” brought about by Jesus’ baptism by fire? We both likely agree such was accomplished at Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 2, 3, 4). Then, where’s the division at Pentecost, Rev?
Wow. I disagree. Peter taught the "gospel of the circumcision" because he went to the circumcised of Israel. I believe this included the "lost sheep" in the Parthian Empire where the church took root with the many bishoprics in the east. Paul got frustrated with the Jews, and swore off preaching to them, so became known as the apostle of the uncircumcised. It did not have to do with a difference in their teaching.Early in his ministry, Peter first denied the Holy Spirit not standing and preaching the inspired Gospel (Acts 2:14 KJV). Secondly, Peter denied the Holy Ghost preaching another gospel to those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV) beginning in Acts 2:22 KJV. Thirdly, Peter denied the Holy Ghost addressing those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV), who clearly heard the message (Acts 2:8 KJV), that included those who were NOT lost sheep of the house of Israel to whom Jesus was sent (Matthew 10:6 KJV, Matthew 15:22, 23, 24; John 20:19, 20, 21).
Keturah's descendants were not the "lost" sheep to which you refer, and were not Canaanites. See above for some of the "lost" sheep to which Peter was sent. Peter did not swear off the Hebrews as Paul did, and went to both Hebrews and Gentile. It appears you are now going after Peter because he lays the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews. Problem still remains for you though in that Jesus did so likewise and even the OT does by saying He came unto His own and was rejected in the house of His fellows.The lost sheep were predominately the fatherless Pharzite and Zarhite descendants of Judah via Tamar (Genesis 38:26, 29, 30). Jesus was a descendant of Pharez (Matthew 1:1, 2, 3; Luke 3:33). Jesus’ mere presence ‘legitimized’ Judah’s descendants via Tamar; but, I don’t think Judah’s Shelanite descendants were too happy about their now ‘illegitimate’ disposition. With sincere respect Rev, you simply haven’t figured out those non-Israelite ‘Jews’ who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion were “Abraham’s seed” via Keturah (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV), they just weren’t “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV; Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Wasn’t Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2), a ‘son’ of Keturah (Genesis 25:2)? Didn’t Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah survive to procreate (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26)?
So are you saying Jesus is not our Savior?Jesus couldn’t legally be Messiah since He was a descendant of Judah and his set-aside (Genesis 38:11 KJV), widowed daughter-in-law Tamar contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 20:12 KJV, Leviticus 21:7, 9, 13, 14...
May I remind you that the law of Leviticus was given after Judah, and I believe through Jesus? The law also says you cannot marry your mother or sister. Taking that to its logical conclusion, would make Jesus illegitimate no matter how one cuts the mustard since Adam's first children would apparently had to break that law making everyone illegitimate.
Note, they were asking where his father was. They are insinuating that he was conceived out of wedlock, and was illegitimate. It had nothing to do with his ancestry as they would be impugning their own.Wasn’t Abraham married to Keturah (Genesis 25:1 KJV)? Wasn’t Judah’s Canaanitess mate his wife (1Chronicles 2:3; Genesis 38:2, 12)? So, there’s the ancestral division at Pentecost, Rev. Does the covenant of marriage between an Israelite and a Canaanite conflict with Abraham’s infamous quest for a non-Canaanitess wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3 KJV), contrary to Isaac’s and Rebekah’s dire quest for a non-Canaanitess wife for Jacob (Genesis 27:46, 28:1, 2, 3, 4), and contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7... does the covenant of a trespassed marriage between a Hebrew/Israelite and a Canaanite overrule Jesus’ ancestry that was contrary to the aforementioned laws of Leviticus 18:15, 20:12, 21:7, 9, 13, 14 KJV? Those non-Israelites seeking Jesus’ crucifixion though so: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19, 25, John 8:41 KJV.
I really don't know what you are specifically talking about here, but I hazard no.Do you or other LDS (or any other church, for that matter) have another notion of Jesus’ incendiary baptism bringing about division at Pentecost?
I don't know how you can keep rationalizing this, when it is clear Jesus is correcting him. You just insist that Jesus was only doing so in with a spiritual reference when He plainly mentions being born of water. You insist that the water is only spiritual. Yet, John instituted water baptism, and Jesus' apostles kept performing them.Do LDS consider Jesus’ words in John 3:5 KJV, John 3:6 KJV referring to being dunked? I gather Jesus was reiterating Nicodemus’ flesh re-birth scenario with utterly no mention of baptism, or baptismal water.
The text doesn't specify. That is all. Baptism of the apostles and other disciples clearly to the time of Christ's ascension did involve submersion because Jesus had not yet given them the gift of the Holy Ghost until his ministry was completed.I do appreciate the notion of laying on hands being another form of baptism. And, that’s what disciple Annanias did to Paul in Acts 9:17 KJV, Act 9:18 KJV that had nothing to do with water.
I don't know why you refuse to accept the testimony of the other apostles my friend. You seem to be driving a wedge between yourself as being right, and the fullness of the gospel.Paul received knowledge of the ancestral authenticity of Jesus from disciple Ananias who was likely either present in John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV, or present at Pentecost.
Depends whether he repented sufficiently I think. He didn't commit adultery or murder.I don’t necessarily know they died without God, Rev. They died in disobedience. Peter was talking about the disobedient “sons of God” who died in the flood. Precipitating the flood, the “sons of God (Sethites) saw the daughters of men (Cain’s daughters) that they were fair; and they took them wives all of which they chose” (Genesis 6:2 KJV). Did Solomon die without God? Or, did Solomon die in disobedience? Solomon died in disobedience hooking up with those “strange wives” contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Following Solomon’s worship of other gods, did Solomon die without God? After he died, was Solomon in prison, or was Solomon in paradise?
Was paradise the same as heaven in the resurrection?As far as the dude on the cross, Jesus’ Spirit left His body on the cross that same day. The dude died after Jesus did. So, I have the impression the dude never saw “prison.” Peter was talking about “prison” where I suggest those “sons of God” were at who hooked up with the daughters of Cain. Those “sons of God” were sorta stuck in the same place Cain was after Lamech executed him: prison awaiting Judgment. Jesus went in the Spirit to speak to those “sons of God” as Peter gave example, and I suspect they wound up in paradise like the dude on the cross. But, I doubt Cain did. So, I don’t perceive the dude on the cross saw “prison,” he saw paradise. The other dude on the cross might have seen prison.
Exactly.I suggest you’re considering John 5:25 KJV a little prematurely, Rev. Consider a few verses later in John 5:28 KJV, John 5:29 KJV, John 5:30 KJV. Sounds to me like not everyone in prison will receive the “resurrection of life”.
To allow them to accept the covenant brought by Christ and be resurrected in him.Jesus didn’t say anything about baptism of the dead. If I recall correctly, your position is that baptism of the dead by proxy doesn’t guarantee eternal life. Then, what’s the point of baptizing the dead by proxy?
No, it doesn't. Repentance does that.Said baptism makes the dead, sinless?
Water baptism is a physical token of the covenant for the benefit of our physical resurrection. The physical act of baptism doesn't wash away our sin nor "save" us.Sounds to me like Jesus is the One who makes that decision in those verses, even today. And, water baptism had nothing to do with His judgment.
One does have to be able to speak.RE: baptism for the dead.
It makes a very big difference, Rev. A sixth grader? Seriously? Is the octogenarian demented? Why not infants, then?
It is voluntary. My children have acted as proxies for their ancestors.Are 6th graders asked? They are de facto participants, not manikins. That must be pretty exalting for a naïve 6th grader!
Again it is not the act itself which does that. But by following Jesus, yes our sins of ignorance etc can be "washed" away.Quote:
REV: And yes, LDS Christians need the blood of the lamb - it is a crucial part of the atonement. It is not part of the baptism tho. It has to do with repentance, etc.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I got a different impression that LDS baptism washed away sin or ignorance.
It shows a humble willingness to follow Christ into the sin of the world, and yet to be clean from it, and rise triumphantly in Him.Since I proclaim the blood of the Lamb, and ‘put on Christ,’ what does water baptism offer more than a public declaration of faith? Were the OT priests making a public declaration of faith washing themselves and their clothes in Solomon’s brazen sea? It wasn’t the priests that reconciled Israel, it was the sacrifice.
Quote:
.
But it wasn't because of plural wives per se. Clearly Judah didn't die from it. Neither was Solomon killed.Like I said, we can debate the definition of sin. God/Moses made it perfectly clear, no hanky panky with Canaanites & Co. in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, “neither shalt thou make marriages with them... For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” Consider Deuteronomy 23:3, 6. What was going on before the flood (Genesis 6:1, 2, 3, 4, Matthew 24:36, 37, 38, 39)? Such was on the Books long before Solomon took office! Ezra reiterated that law some 1,400 years later, Rev: Ezra 9:1, 2, referring to such infraction as a “great trespass” in Ezra 9:7 KJV. Solomon was guilty of a “great trespass” en masse before he even started worshipping other gods.
The problem is they are liars who pose they are somehow revealing "truth." Who in the Bible did that from the beginning?Well, Rev... maybe those folk who post vids of LDS/Mormon ceremonies feel they’ve been lied to. What’s the problem with transparency? Scrutiny?
Paul repeatedly has trouble with convincing new members of the reality of the resurrection. On this occasion he uses something it seems they knew was happening to argue for the reality of our resurrection.To the best of my knowledge, the following verses from Paul are used to justify baptism of the dead. To my fallible rendering, baptism of the dead was to no avail since the dead didn’t resurrect. Furthermore, Paul ‘died daily.’ Then wouldn’t Paul need to be baptized daily?
1Corinthians 15:29-34, KJV Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 30) And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31) I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. 33) Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34) Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
He is saying the attitude of people to live it up because we are just going to die caused him to die daily.
The act itself does not wash away sin. Repentance and accepting Christ does that. It is a semblance of accepting Christ tho. It is for the temple of our body.I hear Paul shunning participants who are baptized for the dead in v. 33, 34. Please let me ask you again, Rev: Does proxy baptism wash away the sins of the deceased? Here’s your statement from post #100:
Quote:
REV: It was a type of being washed of our sin or ignorance. This was instituted in the new covenant in the from of baptism, which is why it is referred to as washing our sins, Rev 1:5, and being made clean in Him.
Forgive me for suggesting you’re shifting from foot to foot there, Rev. Either water baptism washes away sin or ignorance, or it doesn’t.
exactly.If water baptism washes away sin, then there’s no need for atonement via the blood of the Lamb.
So what was the purpose for washing in the sea according to Kayaker? The atonement is not actually the same as repentance but is part of the process. The atonement is being brought clean to the Father.In the OT it was the animal being sacrificed that made atonement, not the washing of the priests and their clothes in Solomon’s brazen sea.
You are basing your notion on a few statements of Jesus which I believe are being made in a spiritual sense. You are reading them in a literal genealogical sense. He is saying they have denied the Father because they have denied Him as the Father's representative - not that they are from a different genealogical line.Whether appointed by the Romans or not, it was the “high priest” Caiaphas (before the “chief priests”) who suggested Jesus should “die for the people”: John 11:47 KJV, John 11:48 KJV, John 11:49 KJV, John 11:50 KJV, John 11:51 KJV. What you fail to realize is Caiaphas & Co. were NOT ancestrally authentic Israelites (much less authentic priests) as I’ve already alluded to, but you refuse to accept this notion.
I've already said no several times.But, there’s no doubt, speaking of priests and priesthood, the high priest set the stage for the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. So LDS priests wash away sins via baptism... who needs the blood of the Lamb, then?
The work of the lamb is not finished.I don’t think becoming an LDS priest is on my agenda. Jesus’ sacrifice is finished, so there’s no need in my mind for priests today to be washing in Solomon’s brazen sea that involved animal sacrifice.
Jesus came that the law may be fulfilled, and that it may be fulfilled in Him for we can do nothing without Him. But the law is still being fulfilled - not one jot or tittle will fall from the law until it is all accomplished.So, the sacrifice of the Lamb of God didn’t completely fulfill the law? Jesus and those aforementioned non-Israelite instigators of His crucifixion fulfilled God’s law of Genesis 3:15 KJV. Take another listen to the commandment Jesus received from His Father:
John 10:14-18, KJV “14) I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15) As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16) And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
He was talking about water baptism which is what confused Nicodemus, and why Jesus responded more clearly about being born of water and spirit. We don't focus on the notion of animal sacrifice at all. But it was a type of things to come.The LDS focuses on the OT notion of priest involvement with animal sacrifices. The LDS allegedly make priests out of believers, when the king of polygamy’s brazen sea was never used for making priests. Meanwhile, Jesus in the NT focused on making disciples out of His believers: John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV, Matthew 28:19. Nicodemus was confused how a Gentile, for instance, might re-enter his mother’s womb and be born again a Jew (John 3:1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Jesus was not talking about water baptism, which, at a later venue, might have involved water baptism by His disciples (John 3:22 KJV).
Elders do undergo a washing and anointing ordinance.LDS priests don’t bathe and wash their clothes preparing for, or following animal sacrifice.
I am merely trying to show that there is more to the atonement than dying as a lamb. You seem to want to cram the various aspect of the temple all into a sacrifice on a tree. There is much, much more to the atonement than that.And, you think Jesus died to validate the LDS notion of OT baptisms? Jesus fulfilled the law being God’s sacrificial Lamb as already mentioned.
Well, I guess you can always rewrite the Bible Kayaker's way and remove the brasen sea from the temple...I suggest you folks consider the next step and begin animal sacrifices to be more OT authentic. The OT priests weren’t baptizing themselves or the Israelites; it was the sacrifice that was important.
May I suggest you try to think about what each aspect of the temple represents? Before the temple what did the ark of the covenant represent? Well, have to go - I'll try to talk more later.But, while among the “chief priests,” the “high priest” Caiaphas certainly prepared the Lamb of God for sacrifice: John 11:47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52. At a glance, the LDS don’t worship Solomon’s brazen sea. LDS just worship water baptism in those retrofitted shallow baptismal fonts that were too deep in the OT to even baptize in: 1Kings 7:23 NLT.
Last edited: