Kayaker

[RevTestament]

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.

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.

Again, what were they doing then? And why was it called a sea? What is the significance of it being brass? etc.
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.

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?

Actually, the apostles received the gift of the Holy Ghost when Christ breathed on them.

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).

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.

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)?

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.

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...

So are you saying Jesus is not our Savior?
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.

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.

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.

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 really don't know what you are specifically talking about here, but I hazard no.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Depends whether he repented sufficiently I think. He didn't commit adultery or murder.

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.

Was paradise the same as heaven in the resurrection?

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”.

Exactly.

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?

To allow them to accept the covenant brought by Christ and be resurrected in him.

Said baptism makes the dead, sinless?

No, it doesn't. Repentance does that.

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.

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.

RE: baptism for the dead.
It makes a very big difference, Rev. A sixth grader? Seriously? Is the octogenarian demented? Why not infants, then?

One does have to be able to speak.

Are 6th graders asked? They are de facto participants, not manikins. That must be pretty exalting for a naïve 6th grader!

It is voluntary. My children have acted as proxies for their ancestors.

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.

Again it is not the act itself which does that. But by following Jesus, yes our sins of ignorance etc can be "washed" away.

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.

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.
Quote:
.

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.

But it wasn't because of plural wives per se. Clearly Judah didn't die from it. Neither was Solomon killed.

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?

The problem is they are liars who pose they are somehow revealing "truth." Who in the Bible did that from the beginning?

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.

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.
He is saying the attitude of people to live it up because we are just going to die caused him to die daily.

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.

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.

If water baptism washes away sin, then there’s no need for atonement via the blood of the Lamb.

exactly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I've already said no several times.

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.

The work of the lamb is not finished.

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.”

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.

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).

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.

LDS priests don’t bathe and wash their clothes preparing for, or following animal sacrifice.

Elders do undergo a washing and anointing ordinance.

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.

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.

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.

Well, I guess you can always rewrite the Bible Kayaker's way and remove the brasen sea from the temple...

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.

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.

 

[RevTestament]

Indeed... my direction was exploring Joseph Smith’s translation skills associated with Egyptian artifacts. He prepared an Egyptian to English character chart for interpreting those scrolls. That chart has been debunked by contemporary Egyptologists.

I do appreciate your attempts to study the Book of Abraham. It is probably the most "problematic" for converts or even members of the church. While I realize there are differences, the meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics and words changed over the years as with any language. The gods of the canoptic jars changed, etc. This can be shown through even a cursory review of the Egyptian histories. These "experts" seem to be referring to the "classical" period of Egypt's history under pharaohs like Ramses, but Abraham was about 700 years before that - a lot can change in 700 years. I tend to believe what Joseph was seeing was the root meaning of the words going back to the foundation of Egypt through Ham. Nevertheless, in some ways they agree - Like in the crocodile of facsimile 1, which of course they don't bring up.

Well, Rev... I’m a classic example that even a blind wild hawg will find an acorn every now and then. The short of the story is Smith’s translation skill from Egyptian to English has been totally debunked, regardless of which scroll the Book of Abraham came from.

Not really. See above.

Maybe Smith was or wasn’t skilled or gifted in a number of ways, but Egyptian translation was certainly not one of them. That in itself casts utter doubt in my mind as to the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but this wouldn't be the first time "experts" are wrong.

The Kinderhook tablets that Smith reports having translated was a hoax.

Joseph Smith never translated these plates. The only thing we really have about them is what William Law said that Joseph said which was a few sentences. William Law appears to be the least gifted any of the secretaries Joseph had. In a comparison with other recorders who used shorthand, Law can be seen to miss or change the most words, so his account is not entirely trustworthy. Whatever the case, Joseph Smith never published any translation of those plates. I believe he later realized they were not what he first thought, but others think otherwise.

I appreciate your denying the claims that Cain was cursed with black skin. Such is actually contrary to Scripture.

Just to be clear, I am not necessarily denying that such is the case, but I currently don't believe it is, so agree with you.

I did want to comment on your point here:

Quote:
REV: Just because church leaders are imperfect tho doesn't mean a church isn't true. Obviously, all of us are afflicted with imperfection. One of the biggest problems men have is wanting to be right. It is often hard for them to accept correction from the Lord.
I thought all churches were true, Rev. Maybe some are closer to the truth than others, speaking of John 8:32 KJV. A couple verses from Jesus’ prayer for His disciples: John 17:17 KJV, John 17:18 KJV. Please consider John 18:37 KJV, John 18:38 KJV... Pilate knew Jesus was an authentic Israelite Jew. Pilate also knew those making accusations against Jesus were not ancestrally intact Jews: John 19:19 KJV, John 19:20 KJV, John 19:21 KJV, John 19:22 KJV.

Pilate had no way of "knowing" these things imho.

I appreciate your notion the Book of Mormon’s mention has nothing to do with skin pigmentation in your rendering, Rev. Maybe the following verse is from an older edition:

2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Like I said "It does talk about Lamanites receiving a 'skin of darkness' or blackness," which people tend to read rather literally. But I read that as more having to do with countenance as opposed to having a white or pure countenance:
25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof. 3 Nephi 19

Quote:
So how come both Jesus and Peter place the blame for His crucifixion on the priests and levites? The Jews are clearly blamed.
Great question! What documentation is there those Pharisee priests were all ancestral Israelites? Peter, early in his ministry in Acts 2:22 KJV, was speaking to those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV). It’s hard for me to imagine that Peter didn’t know some of those mockers were not Israelites or Gentiles. I further define the question that there were instigators of Jesus’ crucifixion, and there were those deluded Israelites, Levites included, who followed suit rebuking the notion Jesus was Messiah. Paul was so deluded before his conversion. It wasn’t Paul’s original idea that Christians deserved rebuke. If you will offer specific cases, maybe I can offer specific responses. But, those circumcised detractors seeking Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 11:47, 48, 49, 50, 51) were not Israelite Jews (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7; Revelations 2:9, 3:9).

Again imho, these later scriptures do not say what you keep reading into them. If He was not rejected by His own, the scriptures would not be fulfilled. Now take Luke there. To me Jesus seems to be saying the opposite of what you claim. He is essentially telling them they are the trees of Abraham, but that as He was speaking an axe was being taken to those trees because they were not bringing forth good fruit. What He is saying is it doesn't matter if what you say is true that you are the legal seed of Abraham - if you are not bringing forth good fruit, you will be pruned out of the vineyard, and God will raise up a righteous tree. He is not denying their claim to be heirs of Judah. You keep trying to say somehow that they were not, so that is how come they were wicked. Jesus is saying your genealogy doesn't make you righteous or wicked. You seem to be saying it does?
Further, you seem to be saying that Canaan was born by Ham's mother?

The face value of Genesis 9:22 KJV suggests Ham was a gay voyeur. Whatever happened in Noah’s tent was indeed a significant event. To each their own, but Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV speak to this ole blind wild hawg.

In other words you are saying while Noah was drunk, Ham went in and slept with mother, and thereby uncovered his father's "nakedness." Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be the issue you have with Canaan. But as I said, I will not speculate on that.

That’s the real question, who are the Jews? And, that question is addressed to a large extent in the next post reflecting on Ezra’s account in 1Chronicles 4:1.

Other than those vague references above, you have no evidence that the Jews ie "pharisees" were not descended from Pherez and Zarah. There are specific scriptures claiming they were or of Levi.

 

[kayaker]

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.

Thanks for the new thread, Rev. I apologize for not getting back sooner. Working like a Hebrew slave, and have out of town obligations to boot.

Patrick’s thread “remember” was sincere as we both appreciate. You brought me into the scenario as an opponent to ‘churches’, which I am, with all due respect to the traditional notion. You made a quaint invitation for Patrick to consider the Mormon church… and, here we are. It appears as though Patrick made a congenial gesture to discuss ‘churches’ elsewhere.

KAY: 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.

REV: Again, what were they doing then? And why was it called a sea? What is the significance of it being brass? etc.

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.

You’re asking me what those priests were doing in the brazen sea in Solomon’s day? C’mon, Rev… they were preparing for and concluding from the sacrifice of animals. No baptism to it. The priests washed in the brazen sea, Rev… where do you read specific mention they had to “immerse in the sea,” as in being dunked? Did they dunk each other? And, you suggest “Before we have the right to partake of Christ’s body of the temple, we must be baptized.” The dude on the cross was not baptized, and Jesus made no mention of being “baptized” in water as a prerequisite to enter into the body of Christ. We put on Christ, we don’t wash on Christ, lol! Like I’ve said Rev, you folks worship water baptism like the Pharisees worshipped circumcision that Peter was supporting, and was rebuked by Paul.

KAY: 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?

REV: Actually, the apostles received the gift of the Holy Ghost when Christ breathed on them.

You circumvented the question, Rev: “What is the LDS impression of the “division” brought about by Jesus’ baptism by “fire” (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV)? John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15 KJV). JTB’s mother Elizabeth “was filled with the Holy Ghost” before Jesus’ birth (Luke 1:41 KJV). JTB’s father Zacharias “was filled with the Holy Ghost” following JTB’s birth (Luke 1:67 KJV). Promptly following Jesus’ birth, there was Simeon, and “the Holy Ghost was upon him” (Luke 2:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). I ask again, “Then, where’s the division at Pentecost, Rev?” Or, elsewhere for that matter, reflecting on His words in Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52, 53?

KAY: 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).

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.

You’re in a different venue, Rev. Do you think Peter was standing and preaching the Gospel at Pentecost? What’s your take on Acts 2:14 KJV, then? After the Pentecostal Gospel, didn’t Peter teach another gospel beginning Acts 2:22 KJV? Do you not think those mockers at Pentecost (Acts 2:13 KJV) included those who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 11:47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)? By their own admission, those instigators were NOT Israelites, Rev: “…We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man…” (John 8:33 KJV). They weren’t Israelites who had been in bondage in Egypt. Then, who were they, Rev? What was their ancestral origin, speaking of “Abraham’s seed” since Abraham sired progeny via Hagar, Sarah, Keturah and concubines?

KAY: 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)?

REV: 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.

Agreed, Keturah’s descendants were not “lost” sheep, Rev. But, her descendants were “Abraham’s seed”, right (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV)? But, you don’t think “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4) were Canaanites? Moses didn’t call them Abraham’s children, LOL! They were mamzers, Rev, progeny of a forbidden marriage. In fact, Moses said Judah’s father-in-law Shuah was a “Canaanite” (Genesis 38:1, 2). And, Shuah was one of “Abraham’s seed” (v. 2, Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4, John 8:33 KJV). Furthermore, Shuah’s daughter (Judah’s wife, Genesis 38:1, 2, 11) was a “Canaanitess” according to Ezra (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). So, your argument isn’t with me that Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were Canaanites.

As far as Peter early in his ministry, Peter didn’t know a sheep from shinola, Rev (Acts 4:13, 20). And, with sincere respect, neither do you, speaking to all ‘churches’ that I know of. You disagree with Moses and Ezra that Abraham’s “seed” via Keturah were Canaanites (Genesis 38:1, 2; 1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). Since Abraham’s “seed” Shuah was a Canaanite… Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah was not an ancestrally authentic Hebrew descendant of Eber/Heber as was Abraham (Genesis 10:21 KJV; v. 35 of Luke 3:38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33…). Since “Abraham’s seed” Shuah (via Keturah) was a Canaanite, then Judah’s progeny via his Canaanite wife were Canaanites, aka Shelanites (Numbers 26:20 KJV). John the Baptist knew those plotting Jesus’ crucifixion were not authentic Hebrews (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9). Jesus knew His detractors were neither Hebrews, nor Israelites (John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Paul understood this ancestral delineation in Romans 9:6, 7, 8 being the ancestral “division” Jesus spoke of in Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV. So, what’s the problem, Rev? Gotta Canaanite in the LDS priesthood, then?

So, since Abraham’s progeny Shuah (via Keturah) was a Canaanite (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4, 38:2)…. and, Shuah’s daughter (being the wife of Judah) was a Canaanitess (1Chronicles 2:3)… then, those Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanitess wife (Numbers 26:20) were neither Hebrew, nor Israelite (John 8:33 KJV). Judah’s descendants via his Canaanite wife were NOT authentic Jews (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). You’re white-washing Judah’s Canaanite/Shelanite descendants, and you have a real bone to pick over who Tamar was. Very interesting posture, Rev. So, just imagine why, as you pointed out: Why WAS Jesus “rejected in the house of His fellows”? Who misled “His fellows”, Rev? Who misled the Pharzite/Zarhite lost sheep of the house of Israel? And, you can’t fathom the notion the Shelanite descendants of Judah (Isaiah 65:9) had a bone to pick with the Pharzite/Zarhite descendants of Judah (Numbers 26:20) from whom Jesus descended? What did those non-Israelites say in John 8:33 KJV, and John 8:41 KJV? I can only throw the dots on the table, Rev.

KAY: 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...

REV: So are you saying Jesus is not our Savior?

That’s the part you’re not getting, Rev. That’s the position those non-Israelite Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife (Genesis 25:1, 2, 38:1, 2; 1Chronicles 2:3; Numbers 26:20) took holding Mosaic Law over the heads of the lost sheep Pharzite (and Zarhite) descendants of Judah in Jesus’ day. Listen again to those Canaanite, non-Hebrew, non-Israelite Shelanites in John 8:33 KJV, and most particularly in John 8:41 KJV. Judah was married to their Canaanitess ancestral mother. Judah was NOT married to his twice widowed, set-aside, non-virgin daughter-in-law, Tamar who played the harlot. If we were having this discussion before the fact of Jesus’ birth, you, like pre-repentant Paul, would follow right along behind those impostors considering you’re white-washing Judah’s Canaanite descendants, and your less than benign posture regarding Tamar’s origin.

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.

May I remind you that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Do I have to remind you God intervened in the conceptions of Isaac, Jacob, and Judah? You report you “believe through Jesus.” What did Jesus tell those non-Hebrew, non-Israelite, ancestral impostors, Canaanite-Shelanite alleged Jews (John 8:33 KJV; Revelation 2:9, 3:9) in John 8:37 KJV, and John 8:39 KJV? You refute Moses claim Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were Canaanites (Genesis 38:1, 2, 25: 2). You refute Ezra’s claim Shuah’s daughter (wife of Judah) was a “Canaanitess” (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). You utterly discount Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 reiterated some 1,400 YEARS later by Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. You completely circumvent Abraham’s infamous quest for a NON-Canaanitess wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3 KJV). You make utterly no comment regarding Isaac’s and Rebekah’s dire concerns for a NON-Canaanitess wife for Isaac (Genesis 27:46 KJV, Genesis 28:1, 2, 3, 4)… but, you want to discuss the wives of the Sethites & Co.? I’m more than happy, Rev. Many of them were the “daughters of men”, the daughters of Cain & Co. (Genesis 6:1, 2). But, your church, like most of them out there to my knowledge, have some elementary Sunday School lessons that need serious upgrading.

I suspect you have a problem with Judah’s father-in-law Shuah being a documented Canaanite (Genesis 38:2) because Shuah’s brother was Midian (Genesis 25:1, 2). Don’t LDS/Mormons hold Moses’ father-in-law Jethro/Jether in the priesthood being a Midianite Priest? Jethro/Jether was a Benjamite being a priest in the land of the Midianites, Rev. That didn’t make Jethro/Jether a blood Midianite, btw. Besides striking the rock twice, Moses didn’t enter the Promised Land because Moses didn’t avenge the Israelites of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1, 2, 9, 13, Numbers 31:14 KJV, Numbers 31:18, 35).

KAY: 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 thought so: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19, 25, John 8:41 KJV.

REV: 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.

Being illegitimate is definitely better than being a mamzer, Rev. A mamzer is the progeny of a forbidden marriage as was Judah’s to his Canaanitess wife, btw. You can’t buy that notion as you whitewash Solomon’s forbidden marriages. The dialogue between John 8:12 KJV and John 8:47 KJV was ALL about ‘who’s ya daddy’, Rev. Those detractors plotting Jesus’ crucifixion didn’t have a problem with their ancestry (John 8:41 KJV). And, interestingly, neither do you. They would have had a problem with Jesus’ ancestry had Joseph been Jesus’ biological father. Their problem was Jesus wasn’t a Canaanite-Shelanite descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife, granddaughter of Keturah (John 8:33 KJV)! As far as impugning their own ancestry, Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Revelation 2:9, 3:9, speaks volumes: HYPOCRITES!

In an effort to whitewash King David being a descendant of Judah and Tamar, the Jewish Talmud teaches Judah married Tamar which was clearly NOT the case (Genesis 38:26 KJV). Regardless of their whitewashing allegation, Pharez (in David’ ancestry) was STILL conceived out of wedlock and contrary to Leviticus 18:15, 20:12, 21:7, 9, 13, 14 KJV. So, the Jews whitewash David as king, but cannot accept Jesus, also a descendant of Pharez, as Messiah? Hypocrites, Rev. And, I do not whitewash Abraham’s, Judah’s, or Solomon’s forbidden wives contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7.

KAY: Do you or other LDS (or any other church, for that matter) have another notion of Jesus’ incendiary baptism bringing about division at Pentecost?

REV: I really don't know what you are specifically talking about here, but I hazard no.

Please listen again to Jesus’ words in Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV. The incendiary division Jesus spoke of involved family relationships… And, I suggest those relationships were ancestral as exemplified in John 8:12 KJV, John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV, John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7, 8; Revelation 2:9, 3:9 KJV. Those verses accurately reflect Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. If not ancestral division being Jesus’ incendiary baptism Rev, what do you have in mind?

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

Your rationalization, along with all water baptismal spiritual regeneration advocates, is that Jesus was speaking of water baptism. Neither Jesus, nor John as the author, never used the word baptism discussing Nicodemus’ quandary. The word baptism wasn’t mentioned until the next venue (John 3:22 KJV). Jesus was reiterating Nicodemus’ notion of flesh birth involving amniotic fluid. We are all ‘born of water’ being gestated. Nicodemus was a blue-blooded high-born ruler of the Jews. Nicodemus’ quandary was how a Gentile, for instance, can re-enter his mother’s womb filled with amniotic fluid, be re-gestated, and be re-born a Jew. Nicodemus’ literal understanding of Jesus’ mention of being “born again” was flesh birth, and Jesus’ notion was Spiritual re-birth after being gestated and born.

So, sure… Jesus was correcting Nicodemus… Jesus was telling Nicodemus that being born a Jew, either originally, or by a non-Jew re-entering his mother’s womb and going through the birthing process, was insufficient to “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3 KJV). Jesus mentioned being “born again” BEFORE He used the word “water.” AFTER Nicodemus brought up flesh birth (John 3:4 KJV), Jesus THEN responded to Nicodemus’ quandary reiterating the flesh birthing process involving amniotic fluid (John 3:5 KJV). Water (amniotic fluid) IS a prerequisite to flesh birth. Water is not a prerequisite for Spiritual re-birth. Neither was circumcision, btw. Nonetheless, you might consult Peter’s notion of being “born again… by the word of God” (1Peter 1:22, 23). Sounds like a job for John 14:26 KJV, and not water baptism.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

Submersion existed before and after, Rev. Participants didn’t receive the Holy Ghost via submersion, or via any other manner involving water. Jesus breathed on them, remember? I suggest taking another look a Ezekiel 37:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. That’s a job for John 14:26 KJV which I propose will come to complete fruition in Matthew 24:29 KJV, Matthew 24:30 KJV.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

Do you have specific testimonies in mind, Rev? There’s a wedge, no doubt. And, that wedge began with Jesus’ incendiary baptism involving ancestral “division” in Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV. Few churches, if any, have a handle on Jesus’ incendiary ancestral baptism. So much for ‘churches’’, LDS included.

KAY: 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?

REV: Depends whether he repented sufficiently I think. He didn't commit adultery or murder.

Solomon hooking up with those forbidden hotties may or may not fall under the definition of “adultery”. But, those relationships were clearly forbidden.

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.

REV: Was paradise the same as heaven in the resurrection?

Such is not my skill set, Rev. Peter’s example of those in “prison” clearly referred to those “sons of God” who died prior to, or in the flood. Those are who Peter used as an example, and he said Jesus went to them in the Spirit. Do you think Cain & Co. were “sons of God”? His and their daughters were the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:1, 2).

KAY: 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”.

REV: Exactly.

And, Jesus made no mention of them being baptized. Enter those who subscribe to the notion of water baptismal spiritual regeneration, particularly baptism of the dead. Do the living have to be water baptized daily? Or, do they remain without spot or blemish after the first dunking?

Please allow me to take a break here, Rev

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

KAY: 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?

REV: To allow them to accept the covenant brought by Christ and be resurrected in him.

Jesus did that directly in the Spirit Rev. That’s what Peter was talking about in 1Peter 3:18, 18, 20, 21, 22. Jesus didn’t say anything about water baptizing the dead by proxy, Rev. Jesus went to them in the Spirit. But, I’m sure Jesus is glad to know advocates of baptismal spiritual regeneration already got the job done. Take a listen again to Jesus’ words in Luke 12:49 KJV… sounds to me like advocates for water baptismal spiritual regeneration sorta doused Jesus’ fire.

KAY: Said baptism makes the dead, sinless?

REV: No, it doesn't. Repentance does that.

Then, if baptism of the dead doesn’t make them sinless, it’s pointless. They died before the covenant of Christ. Therefore, Jesus addressed those “sons of God” (as Peter gave example) in the Spirit, with no mention of baptism other than being “a good conscience toward God” (1Peter 3:18, 19, 20, 21, 22). Consequently, water baptism, albeit a good thing, is not a prerequisite for salvation. Water baptism is a public declaration of faith… but, baptism is not in lieu of faith. Jude 1:14 KJV “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Do LDS/Mormons have a roster of those proxy baptized “ten thousands of his saints”? There are only around 3,200 named people in the Bible, Rev. But, clearly there were countless more. You guys get each one of them proxy baptized?

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

Splitting hairs Rev, according to your notion… repentance is to no avail without water baptism. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Bottom line: no washy, no ticket. Same as all water baptismal spiritual regeneration advocates. Do LDS/Mormons all hold water baptism to the equivalent of repentance?

KAY: RE: baptism for the dead.

It makes a very big difference, Rev. A sixth grader? Seriously? Is the octogenarian demented? Why not infants, then?

REV: One does have to be able to speak.

Cognitively impaired folk can often speak. Where are the parameters found in the KJV delineating who can and cannot be baptized for the dead?

KAY: Are 6th graders asked? They are de facto participants, not manikins. That must be pretty exalting for a naïve 6th grader!

It is voluntary. My children have acted as proxies for their ancestors.

Children can be persuaded to do many things they’ll have second thoughts about when they mature, and I’m being very congenial. But, you are most definitely dedicated to the LDS/Mormon Church that refuses its members to read anything doctrinal that’s not approved by the elders. So much for the Holy Spirit of Truth, huh?

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.

KAY: Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I got a different impression that LDS baptism washed away sin or ignorance.

REV: Again it is not the act itself which does that. But by following Jesus, yes our sins of ignorance etc can be "washed" away.

And, Jesus didn’t say anything about baptism of the dead. Our “sins of ignorance” are washed away by the Holy Spirit of Truth, Rev (John 14:26 KJV). That is… unless one totally surrenders this Holy communion to elders.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

I appreciate your notion as relates to water baptism, but not as a prerequisite to receiving atonement/salvation. The use of Solomon’s brazen sea by those priests was not baptism, Rev. You guys are making priests out of folk, and have totally circumvented Matthew 28:19.

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.

REV: But it wasn't because of plural wives per se. Clearly Judah didn't die from it. Neither was Solomon killed.

The problem with plural wives involved inheritance issues. The sons of concubines received gifts (Genesis 25:6 KJV). Isaac, a Hebrew, received all Abraham had (Genesis 25:5 KJV). That ought to be a big clue Keturah was not Hebrew… her sons didn’t even show up at Abraham’s funeral (Genesis 25:9 KJV). Unlike Keturah’s “children” (who included Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah, Genesis 38:2, 25:2, 4), do note Ishmael was a “son” of Abraham (Galatians 4:22), but Ishmael was blessed by Almighty God (Genesis 17:20 KJV). Any gift, inheritance, or blessing to “the children of Keturah”, Rev (Genesis 25:4)? What about all those sons of Solomon by his forbidden wives akin to Keturah and her “children”? Think Solomon’s progeny via forbidden wives had a claim to Promised Land? Ezra didn’t think so, Ezra 10:2, 3.

To the best of my knowledge, Judah only had one wife, a Canaanitess. But, we agree such was not a capital offense. I do maintain such relationships precipitated the flood when “the sons of God” (Sethites & Co.) hooked up with “the daughters of men” (Cain’s female descendants) (Genesis 6:1, 2). And, God did say He’d no longer destroy man with the flood (Genesis 9:11 KJV). Judah was sorta brought back into the fold via Tamar’s descendants being ‘legitimized’ by Jesus as her descendant. Solomon committed a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:1, 2, Ezra 9:7 KJV) hooking up with forbidden wives, but he did worship their gods losing a kingdom.

KAY: 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?

REV: The problem is they are liars who pose they are somehow revealing "truth." Who in the Bible did that from the beginning?

They revealed the LDS/Mormon ceremonies resembling Masonic rituals. Who said those rituals were Biblical?

KAY: 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.​

REV: 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.
He is saying the attitude of people to live it up because we are just going to die caused him to die daily.

We certainly disagree, Rev. We are alive, we eat, we drink, and die a flesh death in the future. Those who practice baptism of the dead rejoice in said baptism preempting our future resurrection. Paul rejoiced in Christ Jesus, first fruit of the resurrection that certainly wasn’t accomplished baptizing the dead… they’re still dead and not resurrected in this life.

KAY: 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:

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.​

KAY: 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.

REV: 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 recognize water baptism being a public declaration of faith, Rev. Similar as you suggest, “a semblance of accepting Christ tho.” The temple of our body is alive: we eat, we drink, and tomorrow we die. Baptizing the dead does not resurrect the dead as Christ was resurrected… He ate, He drank, and ascended. Do any of those deceased who are baptized by proxy then resurrect, eat, drink, and ascend? No, they’re still dead. The antediluvian “sons of God” Peter was referring to, to whom Jesus visited in the Spirit (1Peter 3:18, 19, 20, 21, 22) were “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noe entered into the ark…” (Matthew 24:36, 37, 38). Jesus is our ark, and water destroyed both the wicked, and those “sons of God” who were “sometimes disobedient” (Genesis 6:1, 2).

KAY: If water baptism washes away sin, then there’s no need for atonement via the blood of the Lamb.

REV: exactly.

Then, I’m glad I understand your notion of baptism, Rev. Baptism didn’t wash my sins away… the blood of the Lamb did. But, your notion helps me understand that LDS/Mormons don’t need the blood of the Lamb since baptism works for you guys. Do you suppose the blood of the Lamb was simply God’s back-up plan for the great-unwashed, then? And, now LDS/Mormons can baptize the great-unwashed by proxy! That does sorta fit the notion I think I correctly gathered from you that Jesus died to justify LDS/Mormon baptisms. Who needs Jesus when you guys can baptize and directly present those folks before the Father, all without spot or blemish! I’m totally underwhelmed.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

The priests’ first washing in the brazen sea was in preparation for the sacrifice. If I understand you correctly, atonement is achieved via water baptism. Therefore, a sacrifice is not necessary, so one can skip the whole Christ on the cross event. To me, atonement was achieved via the blood of the Lamb. Isn’t atonement is achieved via baptism in the LDS/Mormon Church?

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

I think those non-Israelite detractors said enough by themselves: John 8:33 KJV. Jesus affirmed their boastful declaration they were “Abraham’s seed” in John 8:37 KJV. Do you think those detractors were Ishmaelites, then? Maybe Edomite descendants of Esau? Jesus went further to say those detractors weren’t “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). Well… Moses didn’t think “Abraham’s seed” via Keturah were “Abraham’s children” either: Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4. Those detractors were “the children of Keturah.” They denied Jesus because Jesus wasn’t a descendant of Abraham via Keturah through her granddaughter and Canaanite wife of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). Those detractors weren’t “born of fornication” (John 8:41 KJV) as you whitewash Judah’s union with a forbidden Canaanitess wife, and refute even the slightest possibility Tamar was even an Israelite.

KAY: 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?

REV: I’ve already said no several times.

KAY: 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.

REV: The work of the lamb is not finished.

What did Jesus say on the cross, Rev? John 19:30 KJV “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

KAY 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.”​

REV: 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.

Jesus said Matthew 5:18 KJV and Luke 16:17 KJV BEFORE Jesus said John 19:30 KJV. By receiving the vinegar (old wine) on the cross, Jesus fulfilled His promise to His disciples spoken at the Last Supper:

Matthew 26:26, 27, 28, 29, KJV (my parentheses): “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new (new wine, not vinegar) with you in my Father’s kingdom.”​

I seem to miss the part where the “remission is sins” was achieved by water baptism as advocates of baptismal spiritual regeneration suggest while shifting from foot to foot.

KAY: The LDS focuse on the OT notion of priest intermediaries 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).

REV: 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.

Jesus FIRST told Nicodemus, “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:2 KJV), “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3 KJV). Jesus didn’t say anything about being born of water. Then, Nicodemus brought up flesh birth (John 3:4 KJV). Jesus THEN summarized Nicodemus’ flesh birth scenario being “born of water,” and added that one must be “…born of the Spirit…” In other words Rev, being born a Jew by no means assured Nicodemus he would “see the kingdom of God.” Neither does water baptism, btw.

KAY: LDS priests don’t bathe and wash their clothes preparing for, or following animal sacrifice.

Elders do undergo a washing and anointing ordinance.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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.

Matthew 26:26 KJV, Matthew 26:27 KJV, Matthew 26:28 KJV, Matthew 26:29 KJV… John 19:30 KJV. But, I do agree with you considering 1Peter 4:8 KJV, and James 5:20 KJV, yet I suggest that’s after the initial atonement via the blood of the Lamb. However, I agree such fulfills Matthew 28:19 that had nothing to do with making priests out of folks. Priests being mediators between the Israelites and God was an OT notion. Jesus is my high Priest and mediator, Rev. And, He speaks through His Word and John 14:26 KJV. Priests certainly had other duties, including making sacrifices for themselves before they entered the temple (Leviticus 16:6, 11) to mediate between the Israelites and God via sacrifice. But, LDS/Mormon priests think they are mediators from the OT? Again, who needs the blood of the Lamb when you folks can offer up baptized candidates before Almighty God who are without spot or blemish?

KAY: 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.

REV: Well, I guess you can always rewrite the Bible Kayaker's way and remove the brasen sea from the temple…

Well, I suppose you can always retrofit that 7.5 foot deep brazen sea used by priests associated with animal sacrifice, and use it to make priests via baptism. LDS/Mormons retrofitted the brazen sea from the temple that was destroyed after God warned Solomon (1Kings 6:11, 12, 13, 9:6, 7, 8, 9). And, it doesn’t sound just a little presumptuous to rebuild the temple and/or brazen sea? King Solomon was certainly Joseph Smith’s mentor.

KAY: 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.

REV: 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?

You’re circumventing the point, Rev. May I suggest you read the documented purpose for Solomon’s brazen sea in the OT? So, it’s not me who’s rewriting the Bible (2Chronicles 4:6 KJV).

kayaker

 

[patrick jane]

no offence or ill will at all. i was unhappy with my posts and my frame of mind when i started it. i couldn't delete it so i closed it

 

[kayaker]

I do appreciate your attempts to study the Book of Abraham. It is probably the most "problematic" for converts or even members of the church. While I realize there are differences, the meaning of Egyptian hieroglyphics and words changed over the years as with any language. The gods of the canoptic jars changed, etc. This can be shown through even a cursory review of the Egyptian histories. These "experts" seem to be referring to the "classical" period of Egypt's history under pharaohs like Ramses, but Abraham was about 700 years before that - a lot can change in 700 years. I tend to believe what Joseph was seeing was the root meaning of the words going back to the foundation of Egypt through Ham. Nevertheless, in some ways they agree - Like in the crocodile of facsimile 1, which of course they don't bring up.

The bottom line, Rev: Joseph Smith was no more an Egyptian translator than I can translate the wiring schematic of my laptop. Although I did replace some components and added others in my desktop! But, he was pretty accomplished using his magical seer stone for translating the Book of Mormon. And, Smith clearly re-translated the KJV incorporating those italicized words added by the KJV translators for clarity. Nonetheless, I do appreciate his choice of the KJV as his source.

KAY: Maybe Smith was or wasn’t skilled or gifted in a number of ways, but Egyptian translation was certainly not one of them. That in itself casts utter doubt in my mind as to the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

REV: You are of course welcome to your opinion, but this wouldn't be the first time "experts" are wrong.

Smith was certainly no Egyptian “expert”, Rev.

REV: Just because church leaders are imperfect tho doesn't mean a church isn't true. Obviously, all of us are afflicted with imperfection. One of the biggest problems men have is wanting to be right. It is often hard for them to accept correction from the Lord.

KAY: I thought all churches were true, Rev. Maybe some are closer to the truth than others, speaking of John 8:32 KJV. A couple verses from Jesus’ prayer for His disciples: John 17:17 KJV, John 17:18 KJV. Please consider John 18:37 KJV, John 18:38 KJV... Pilate knew Jesus was an authentic Israelite Jew. Pilate also knew those making accusations against Jesus were not ancestrally intact Jews: John 19:19 KJV, John 19:20 KJV, John 19:21 KJV, John 19:22 KJV.

REV: Pilate had no way of "knowing" these things imho.

If Pilate was like the three judges I’ve met in my life, Pilate was no slacker being a Roman governor, Rev. Particularly concerning the collection to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. You can’t fathom the notion Pilate had access to those tax records corroborating Jesus’ mother’s ancestry? Those detractors wanted to change the inscription of Jesus’ cross, and Pilate, who didn’t have a rooster in the fight, maintained his position. Pilate was obligated to know the truth, Rev:

John 19:21, 22, KJV “Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22) Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.”​

Was Pilate, being a third party to the argument, writing the truth, Rev? Was Pilate a Jew, Rev (John 18:35 KJV)? And, you don’t think Pilate knew the difference between an Israelite Jew, and Canaanite alleged “Jew” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9)? “What is truth…”, Rev (John 18:38 KJV)? Pilate knew Jesus was an authentic Israelite Jew… that’s why Pilate wrote the inscription on Jesus’ cross, and washed his hands ‘finding no fault in Jesus at all’ (John 18:38 KJV). Pilate knew Jesus was not guilty of those ancestral allegations against Him (John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV, John 8:41 KJV…).

How did Pilate know Jesus was King of the Jews, Rev? Was Pilate utterly accurate? But, you think those instigators were Israelites? There were clearly deluded Israelite followers, pre-repentant Paul being an example. Those instigating, non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV, etc, etc.) Pharisee priests were no slackers either, Rev. Why didn’t they think Jesus was king of the Jews? They simply didn’t believe? They had no problem saying Jesus was “King of Israel” (Mark 15:32 KJV, Matthew 27:42 KJV). Why did they have a problem with Pilate saying Jesus was “King of the Jews”? Can you not hear Jesus’ incendiary ancestral baptism in that distinction (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51, 52, 53)? Not all Jews were Israelites, Rev (Revelation 2:9, 3:9).

Those Canaanite alleged “Jewish” priests didn’t want to give up their elite positions, including priesthood: John 11:46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. Do you think Caiaphas was a high priest, Rev? Caiaphas “being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation…” (John 11:51 KJV). Why is or isn’t Caiaphas in the LDS/Mormon priesthood, Rev? Caiaphas is clearly documented a “high priest” (Matthew 26:3, 37; Luke 3:2; John 11:49, 18:13, 14, 24). What you haven’t figured out is that Caiaphas was not an Israelite Jew, Rev (John 8:33 KJV, Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Until you do… you guys are Biblically obligated to include Caiaphas in your priesthood lineage whether it’s inconvenient or not.

REV: Like I said "It does talk about Lamanites receiving a 'skin of darkness' or blackness," which people tend to read rather literally. But I read that as more having to do with countenance as opposed to having a white or pure countenance:

25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof. 3 Nephi 19

You are whitewashing Nephi 5:21, Rev. Your “countenance” posture is only a half-truth. The other half of that truth, according to the Book of Mormon, is bad countenance results in “skin of blackness” being a “sore cursing”:

2 Nephi 5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.​

I think a 6th grader can reach the utterly obvious conclusion, Rev. Black skinned people only get to be servants in the LDS/Mormon heaven from what I’ve read.

REV: Again imho, these later scriptures do not say what you keep reading into them. If He was not rejected by His own, the scriptures would not be fulfilled. Now take Luke there. To me Jesus seems to be saying the opposite of what you claim. He is essentially telling them they are the trees of Abraham, but that as He was speaking an axe was being taken to those trees because they were not bringing forth good fruit. What He is saying is it doesn't matter if what you say is true that you are the legal seed of Abraham - if you are not bringing forth good fruit, you will be pruned out of the vineyard, and God will raise up a righteous tree. He is not denying their claim to be heirs of Judah. You keep trying to say somehow that they were not, so that is how come they were wicked. Jesus is saying your genealogy doesn't make you righteous or wicked. You seem to be saying it does?

Jesus was substantially rejected by His own, Rev: The lost sheep of the house of Israel were predominately the Pharzite (and Zarhite) descendants of Judah and Tamar from whom Jesus descended. Jesus affirmed His instigating detractors were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:37 KJV). Were they Ishmaelites, then? Edomite descendants of Esau? If one doesn’t know, then one may be falsely accusing the Israelite brethren. They were “Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man” (John 8:33 KJV). Their statement alone testifies those instigators were NOT Israelites. And, they definitely were not bringing forth good fruits (Matthew 23:13 KJV).

Jesus never said they were not descendants of Judah; but you find no distinction between Judah’s Canaanite-Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20), and Judah’s Pharzite (and Zarhite) descendants via Tamar. Those Abrahamic, ‘Judahite’, circumcised non-Israelite Shelanite instigators of Jesus’ crucifixion had an ancestral bone to pick with Jesus, descendant of Tamar. Can you not grasp the notion of Jesus’ incendiary ancestral baptism of Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51, 52, 53?

Through belief in Jesus being the Christ, ancestry was of no significance (except for Jesus’ ancestry, alone). Paul made this perfectly clear. Jesus was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), Rev… so was Messiah to be a descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife? Or, was Messiah to be a descendant of Judah and Tamar? That was the quandary of the day, Rev. And, you find no distinction among Judah’s progeny to circumvent Solomon’s “great trespass” en masse (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, Ezra 9:7 KJV).

REV: Further, you seem to be saying that Canaan was born by Ham's mother?…

REV: In other words you are saying while Noah was drunk, Ham went in and slept with mother, and thereby uncovered his father's "nakedness." Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be the issue you have with Canaan. But as I said, I will not speculate on that.

It’s not “my issue” respectfully, Rev. It was Noah’s issue, “Cursed be Canaan” (Genesis 9:22, 23, 24, 25). Do you think Ham was a gay voyeur, Rev? You won’t “speculate” on what went down in Noah’s tent because your church elders are a few verses short of the truth: Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. What do you think Ham saw, Noah’s privates? Like I’ve said, churches need some serious upgrading in their Sunday School classes, LDS/Mormon, included!

REV: Other than those vague references above, you have no evidence that the Jews ie "pharisees" were not descended from Pherez and Zarah. There are specific scriptures claiming they were or of Levi.

The Pharzites and Zarhites were ancestrally authentic Jews, and they were predominately the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Rev. The Shelanites were NOT authentic Jews OR Hebrews. I have no argument there were Levites among those pharisee priests. The aspect you’re not capturing is that there were impostors among their ranks in the synagogues (Matthew 13:33 KJV; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Didn’t Judah hook up with a forbidden wife, Rev (1Chronicles 2:3; Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, Ezra 9:7 KJV)? Didn’t “The people of Israel, and the PRIESTS, and the LEVITES” hook up with forbidden wives (Ezra 9:1, 2) constituting a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:7 KJV)? Is the puppy from a male German Shepherd mating with a Rottweiler, a German Shepherd puppy?

Is there some reason you refused to bring those Shelanites descendants of Judah and his Canaanitess wife into the picture? The reason you refuse to grasp this “great trespass” is because Solomon, Joseph Smith’s OT mentor, hooked up with a harem of forbidden wives. You won’t even consider that Solomon committed the least bit of an infraction before worshipping other gods. Regretfully, imho that’s why you’re having difficulty grasping Jesus’ incendiary ancestral baptism (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51, 52, 53). But, the same ignorance goes for other advocates of water baptismal spiritual regeneration sensationalists. But, not exclusively so.

So, you’re right, Rev. We all want to be right. Since I can’t have my cake and eat it too… I’ll just kayak along. The worst case scenario occurs when we find out our trusted churches have been serving milk and cookies in Sunday School placating the masses assuring the elders have prestige and a paycheck.

kayaker

 

[meshak]

kayaker,

your posts are lengthy. You need to divide to small pieces. It is against the rule about lengthy posts.

just my 2 cents.

 

[meshak]

that goes for Rev, too.

 

[kayaker]

no offence or ill will at all. i was unhappy with my posts and my frame of mind when i started it. i couldn't delete it so i closed it

You are indeed a kind spirit, Patrick! We all fall short having bad frames of mind at times. I'm on the most wanted list for that one, lol! No offense taken by me, and I'm sure Rev will second that. He's a good sport, too.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

kayaker,

your posts are lengthy. You need to divide to small pieces. It is against the rule about lengthy posts.

just my 2 cents.

Your 2 cents are likely worth much more that that, Meshak! I do stand corrected... Is there a word limit per post that you're aware of? That'd help me know my limits...

Thanks,

kayaker

 

[meshak]

Your 2 cents are likely worth much more that that, Meshak! I do stand corrected... Is there a word limit per post that you're aware of? That'd help me know my limits...

Thanks,

kayaker

You can ask Mods to fix it for you, I think.

 

[Ktoyou]

It's fine when it is real dialogue, and not all pasted copy.
Continue on, it is worth reading

 

[ebenz47037]

kayaker,

your posts are lengthy. You need to divide to small pieces. It is against the rule about lengthy posts.

just my 2 cents.

Your 2 cents are likely worth much more that that, Meshak! I do stand corrected... Is there a word limit per post that you're aware of? That'd help me know my limits...

Thanks,

kayaker

You're doing fine, kayaker. Although it took me a while to read through all the relevant posts, I have no problem with the length of your posts. My problem was that I had too much going on to just sit and read.

 

[meshak]

It's fine when it is real dialogue, and not all pasted copy.
Continue on, it is worth reading

Oh, ok.

thanks.

 

[kayaker]

It's fine when it is real dialogue, and not all pasted copy.
Continue on, it is worth reading

Thank you for your constructive criticism, Ktoyou. I, and I'm sure Rev, appreciate your enduring attention and contribution to TOL.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

You're doing fine, kayaker. Although it took me a while to read through all the relevant posts, I have no problem with the length of your posts. My problem was that I had too much going on to just sit and read.

I'm truly honored with your enduring attention also, ebenz. Certainly it is my privilege, and I think for Rev also, to offer lengthy posts for your consideration. Thank you as well for your contribution to TOL.

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Please allow me to pull some major point together from Patrick’s thread “remember”, Rev. I do connect scenarios that are not embraced by ‘mother’ churches breast feeding Jesus’ sheep, although I do appreciated and admire their evangelistic endeavor, more, and less.

We discussed the curse of Cain being originally a fugitive and a vagabond in the land (Genesis 4:12 KJV). I do not hear conjugal visits (procreation) being an option in said curse akin to solitary confinement. Cain pleaded for mercy (Genesis 4:13 KJV) on grounds he feared he would later be ‘found out’ and killed (Genesis 4:14 KJV), even though Cain didn’t get the death penalty. God mercifully placed a mark on Cain such that he would not be ‘found out’ and killed (Genesis 4:15 KJV) akin to Cain now being placed on ‘parole’ being able to mix and mingle under God’s ‘witness protection plan.’

This mark limited the perception of the Sethites (Genesis 4:25 KJV) preempting their ‘finding out’ who Cain was and executing him. The mark of Cain was simply and merely anonymity affording Cain a long flesh life among folk. However, if Cain took advantage of God’s mercy breaking parole and procreating, then Cain punched the clock on his death sentence reducing his 900+ years of flesh life now limited to “sevenfold” generations. In other words, by Cain procreating and building a city (Genesis 4:16 KJV), Cain exchanged an exceedingly long life as a fatherless fellow mingling anonymously among the people, for “sevenfold” generations of anonymous flesh life procreating among the people counting “sevenfold” generations from Eve (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18).

Beguiled Eve (Genesis 3:13 KJV) being the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20 KJV) was generation #1, Cain was generation #2 and so forth with Lamech being the “sevenfold” generation (Genesis 4:17, 18, 19). Anonymity, the mark of Cain, would be lifted upon Lamech’s death whereby the Sethites (Genesis 4:25 KJV) would know Cain’s progeny descended from a cold-blooded, premeditating murderer to say the least. Lamech, having three sons and a daughter (Genesis 4:20, 21, 22), knew his children would be unveiled as the descendants of a premeditating murderer who spilled “the blood of righteous Abel” (Matthew 23:35 KJV), buried his body, and lied to God about it without remorse (Genesis 4:8, 9, 10). Consequently, Lamech (not being a Sethite) chose to execute his beloved and relatively young great-grandfather Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV). Thereby, Lamech extend the mark of anonymity for his children, descendants of Cain (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18), for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations (Genesis 4:24 KJV). Lamech even named one son Tubal-cain in memoriam to his beloved, young great-grandfather (Genesis 4:22 KJV, Genesis 4:23 KJV).

Considering “sevenfold” and “seventy and sevenfold” (Genesis 4:15, 24) as referring to numbers of generations is further corroborated appreciating Jesus is the “seventy and sevenfold” generation from God, inclusively. Jesus is the 77th generation counting from Luke 3:38 with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth. And, Jesus could ‘hear’ (John 8:38 KJV) through the veil of anonymity recognizing Cain’s circumcised forbidden descendants (“generation”) that survived the flood: Matthew 23:28 KJV, Matthew 23:29 KJV, Matthew 23:30 KJV, Matthew 23:31 KJV, Matthew 23:32 KJV, Matthew 23:33 KJV, Matthew 23:34, with particular interest in Matthew 23:35 KJV, who killed Abel? So, the Levite priests were accompanied in the synagogues by the circumcised descendants of Cain (more momentarily) via “the children of Keturah”, wife of Abraham (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4; John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, John 8:44 KJV; Matthew 23:33 KJV, Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV, who killed Abel?).

Keturah’s circumcised mamzerim children (‘bastards’, Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV) of a forbidden marriage (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 3) infiltrated the Levite priesthood in the Israelite synagogues. But, they were neither the “sons” (Genesis 25:9, Galatians 4:22 KJV), nor the “children” of Abraham (John 8:39 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7, 8). Those priest instigators of the crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 11:47, 48, 49, 50) most definitely were not God’s chosen Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10) as discerned in John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV. They were mamzers (mamzerim), progeny of forbidden marriages: Abraham married Keturah, and Judah was married to his “Canaanitess” wife (Genesis 25:1, Genesis 38:1, 2, 12; Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2), constituting a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:7 KJV). Abraham faced a bit of a quandary after Sarah died being he couldn’t remarry an Israelite (or Gentile, Genesis 9:27, 10, 2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV) without jeopardizing Isaac’s exclusive inheritance. Hence: Abraham married a descendant of Cain whose descendants were not privy to inheritance (Genesis 25:5, 6: Deuteronomy 25:5, 6). However, Canaan was not a descendant of Cain despite Keturah being deduced as a Canaanitess (Genesis 25:2, 4, 38:1, 2; 1Chronicles 2:3), I beg your continuing patience:

Looking closely, Moses redundantly used the title “Canaanites” alongside itemized, named descendants of Canaan: Hittites (of Heth), Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites… (Genesis 10:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20). Moses’ redundantly itemized Canaan’s named descendants alongside the title “Canaanites” as is illustrated in Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 11, 23:23, 28, 33:2, 34:11; Deuteronomy 7:1; Even Ezra in Ezra 9:1, 2. So, why the redundancy? The mark of Cain, anonymity. The descendants of Ham with his wife, the ‘daughter’ of Cain (Naamah, Genesis 4:22 KJV), were accurately referred to as “Canaanites” from a geographical perspective: They were from the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:19, 20). The title “Canaanites” was vastly used (if not exclusively) as geographically referring to the descendants of Ham and his wife, ‘daughter’ of Cain, in anonymity.

In contrast, the descendants of Ham via his mother (Canaan being the progeny, thereof: Genesis 9:22, 9:24, 25; Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV; Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV) were directly itemized as named flesh descendants of Canaan. This delineation of Ham’s descendants between his wife and his mother (Canaan being the progeny, thereof) is abundantly clear in Numbers 13:29 KJV; Joshua 3:10, 5:11, 9:1, 11:3, 12:8, 13:4, 24:11.

This ancestral delineation between the descendants of Ham via his wife, and his descendants via his mother (Canaan the progeny, thereof) established the title of “Canaanites” as geographically referring to the descendants of Ham and his wife, if not exclusively so, for reasons of anonymity (Genesis 4:15, 24; Genesis 10:19, 20). Consequently, Abraham’s wife Keturah is readily deduced as a geographical ‘Canaanite’ ‘daughter’ of Cain, and not a flesh descendant of Canaan explicitly named in the aforementioned OT rosters. Likewise, Judah’s geographically identified “Canaanitess” wife (1Chronicles 2:3) was a ‘daughter’ of Cain, and not a flesh descendant Canaan. Therefore, those ‘Canaanite’ instigators of Jesus’ crucifixion were the Shelanite (Genesis 38:2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26; Numbers 26:20) descendants of Cain (Matthew 23:35 KJV, who killed Abel?) fulfilling Genesis 3:14, 15. Such ‘Cainite’ v. “Canaannite” distinction is found in Jesus’ words in Matthew 23: 29 KJV, Matthew 29:30 KJV, Matthew 29:31 KJV, Matthew 29:32 KJV, Matthew 23:33 KJV, Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV, corroborated by Stephen in Acts 7:51, 52 (Matthew 23:30 KJV, Matthew 23:31 KJV), corroborated by John the Baptist in Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9, and known to Paul in Galatians 4:22 KJV and Romans 9:6, 7. Hence: Revelation 2:9, 3:9. All corroborate Moses’ delineation that Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were “the children of Keturah,” and not Abraham (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4).

“Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV) via Keturah, the “Canaanite” named Shuah (Genesis 25:2, 4), was Judah’s “Canaanite” father-in-law (Genesis 38:1, 2). Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah, a mamzer (‘bastard’, Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV) by Judah’s “Canaanitess” wife (1Chronicles 2:3) survived to procreate (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26; Numbers 26:20). It is not inconsequential God personally slew Shelah’s two elder Canaanite brothers Er, and Onan (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Judah’s mamzerim Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20) via his Canaanitess wife (‘daughter’ of Cain, granddaughter of Keturah, the ‘daughter’ of Cain) was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). So, the plot thickened to climax during the 77th (“seventy and sevenfold”) generation from Almighty God (Genesis 4:24 KJV). At that time, Jesus arrived on the scene to set His people free (John 8:30 KJV, John 8:32 KJV, John 8:33 KJV) via his incendiary ancestral baptism of Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12:53 KJV. If you will note, Jesus didn’t mention division between son-in-law and father-in-law, and I direct your attention to John 18:13 KJV, John 18:14 KJV. Jesus’ lost sheep were predominately the fatherless (Genesis 38:26) Pharzites (and Zarhites, Genesis 38:29, 30) from whom Jesus descended (Matthew 1:3 KJV, Luke 3:33 KJV), and to whom Jesus was sent (Matthew 10:6 KJV, Matthew 15:22, 23, 24).

On a further note illustrating Hebrew patrilineal mention (grandsons, etc. were considered “sons”): “The sons of Judah…” began with his eldest twin son Pharez via Tamar (Genesis 38:28 KJV); Pharez’s son Hezron was included as a “son” of Judah, etc, etc. (1Chronicles 4:1 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 50). Do note that Judah’s son eldest son Shelah by his Canaanitess wife was not included in Ezra’s tribal roster of Judah (1Chronicles 4:21, 22 with “these are ancient things” being a clue). Therefore, the “sons of God” (Genesis 6:1, 2) were the Sethites & Co. (Luke 3:36, 37, “Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God” Luke 3:38), and not Nephelim fallen angels as many suspect. Cain’s forbidden progeny included his female descendants who were the “daughters of men” that procreated with the “sons of God” (Sethites) in Genesis 6:1, 2 precipitating the flood. These Sethite “sons of God” who “sometime were disobedient” were who Jesus went to in the Spirit according to Peter in 1Peter 3:18, 19, 20. And, this brings us back to the flood (1Peter 3:20 KJV, 1Peter 3:21 KJV) considering Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:36, 37, 38, 39.

God promised Cain no fewer than “sevenfold” generations of anonymous flesh life in Genesis 4:15 KJV counting from Eve as generation #1 (Genesis 4:16, 17, 18) if Cain chose to procreate, which Cain did in Genesis 4:16, 17, 18. Lamech, being the “sevenfold” generation from beguiled mother Eve (Genesis 3:13 KJV, Genesis 3:20 KJV), extended the veil of anonymity to Cain’s descendants for “seventy and sevenfold” generations (Genesis 4:24 KJV) prophesying God’s Sons’ arrival (Luke 3:38-23). So, there’s more to Jesus renting the veil than meets the eye. However, God’s promise of flesh life only pertained to one individual, Cain. Therefore, Almighty God, being the Promise Keeper, preserved only one of Cain’s descendants on the ark. Ham and his wife were the documented grandparents of Nimrod, king of Babel, if that circumstantial evidence throws up any red flags (Genesis 10:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

Remarkably, there are only three named females between Eve and Sarah, nineteen generations out of 77, total. Those three named females were Lamech's two wives Adah and Zillah, and Lamech’s daughter, Naamah (Genesis 4:21, 22). Therefore, I conclude Naamah was Ham’s wife, ‘daughter’ of Cain, who got a ticket for a cruise fulfilling God’s promise preserving one flesh life extended by Lamech for carrying out the execution of his beloved, relatively young great-grandfather, Cain (Genesis 4:23 KJV). But, there’s more to that story than meets the eye; and, even then some considering Asshur (Genesis 10:11), was the ‘father’ of the Assyrians (Ezekiel 31:2 KJV, Ezekiel 31:3 KJV, Ezekiel 31:8 KJV, Ezekiel 31:9 KJV, Ezekiel 32:22 KJV). It is quite peculiar that Asshur’s father was not explicitly identified in Genesis 10:11 KJV among around 63 explicitly identified descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 10:1). Anonymity? I suspect Ham’s wife was pregnant before the flood, Asshur was born fatherless after the flood, and Ham was not Asshur’s biological father. Another time, perhaps.


The Holy Bible is indeed the most fascinating Book of all time! Certainly these mysteries are Divine. I’ll be the first to agree there’s a certain expected amount of ‘faith’ necessary to consider the above, and connect these dots, as with any great mystery (Matthew 13:10 KJV, Matthew 13:11 KJV). I can only put them on the table, and the rest belongs to John 14:26 KJV. Certainly feel free to check my homework! This isn’t my first rodeo, btw. Hopefully I’ve illustrated Jesus’ incendiary ancestral baptism by “fire” in my ramblings (Luke 12:49 KJV, Luke 12:50 KJV, Luke 12:51 KJV, Luke 12:52 KJV, Luke 12: 53 KJV).

From one dedicated father to another, Rev… I indeed bid you His peace (John 14:27 KJV, John 14:28 KJV, John 14:29 KJV)

kayaker