by Sookie 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Deputy Dog,
I find it strange indeed that Scripture makes no secrecy about baptism by the Holy Spirit --Matt. 3:11 and by water (since Jesus himself is baptized in the Jordon--Matt. 3:13-17), yet Jesus is totally silent about baptism of the dead. And if these secrets are not written down, then who revealed them and how can their veracity be verified?
elderwho, "for-tay" is French, and it refers to music that gets louder. "Fort" is how you pronounce the Latin word that refers to a person's strong points. A common misunderstanding, it's OK.
Both pronunciations are acceptable. A common misunderstanding. It's OK.
P.S. I find only one passage in Scripture that refers to baptism for the dead and that is 1 Cor. 15:29. This does not say that Paul approved of it and practiced it. The context indicates that some Corinthians are denying the resurrection of the dead even though Christ is preached to them as raised from the dead and that some are practicing baptism for the dead and yet denying the resurrection of the dead. It doesn't make any sense to Paul. He is trying to correct their thinking.
Kenneson Here is a secret that Dan won't talk about, that is they still believe in polygamy. They believe that to have Eternal life a woman must be married and a man must be married to more than one wife. So to get around the law of man, they marry by proxy after death just as they baptize after death. Right Dan?
D Dog
drwtsn32, Actually, they're not. This is an example of what philosophers call relativism. Truth is considered to change by people who believe society determines it. It's rather sad when a Christian subscribes to it. The correct pronunciation is fort, but so many people have used the other pronunciation that it is impossible to correct the error. It has become correct only because nobody wants to be corrected. This is called a colloquialism. It may be correct in your little dictionary, but is not correct in a scholars mind. Some (not all) linguists have just decided to let the other pronunciation stand, but know that every time you say "for-tay," you are refering to music that gets louder. Say it to a Frenchman and he will not understand what you're getting at. People who just accept incorrect stuff as correct just because everyone else does it really get under my skin. Geez, be original for once. Do you say "new-kyou-ler" instead of "nuclear," too?
>>>>>>>"Kenneson, Here is a secret that Dan won't talk about, that is they still believe in polygamy. They believe that to have Eternal life a woman must be married and a man must be married to more than one wife. So to get around the law of man, they marry by proxy after death just as they baptize after death. Right Dan?"
Nope. This is another lie.
Actually, they're not. [...] The correct pronunciation is fort, but so many people have used the other pronunciation that it is impossible to correct the error.
The English language is living... it is constantly changing. Both pronunciations are acceptable by today's standard. Everyone knew what elderwho meant when he wrote the word forte'.
Say it to a Frenchman and he will not understand what you're getting at.
A Frenchman will not understand most of the English language. Elderwho wasn't speaking French.
I am showing that it is the rest of y'all that shriek and moan when someone says something that isn't in the Bible,
Then ask yourself why isnt that particular thing not in the Bible?
but your own doctrine comes from everywhere but the Bible.
For an example??
It's the people who have to introduce extra-scriptural assumptions into their doctrine in an effort to reconcile the Bible with their doctrine that are painted into a corner.Then you say later;
You claim that extra scriptural assumptions are null and void, so don't YOU use them to back up your doctrine.
Does that statement depict you as guilty of "extra scriptural assupmtions"?
Dan,
a nice feature of this forum is that it records everything you post. While looking at your previous posts, you are getting into a situation were your beginning to contradict yourself.
Then you make a statement like the following;
And if you would like to see just how seriously I take my Bible you are going to be seriously outmatched.
Well, outmatch me.
Waiting
E.
Guys you don't get it. This Mormon believes he has a direct special revelation that tells him all this stuff. If you get into a serious discussion with Mormons they all drop this on you at some point, it's supposed to be the real clincher. They KNOW because it has been REVEALED! to them. You can't argue with that, at least that's the way they look at it.
"Both pronunciations are acceptable by today's standard. Everyone knew what elderwho meant when he wrote the word forte'."
I know that's what he meant, but I couldn't help but take a prod at him. Forgive me. I still think today's standards are not always the right standards. Your line of thinking is called moral relativism, and it's not Christian. God is not interested in today's standards, and neither am I.
OK elder. I was reading in the NT the other day (KJV) and I came across the word "atonement" in Romans. It seemed like an odd place for that word, so I decided to check the Greek to see if it's accurate. Explain to me, if you would, what the word should be, and then explain to me (etymologically) the difference between atonement and the word that should be there, (providing scriptural references, of course). This should be a good warm-up.
OK elder. I was reading in the NT the other day (KJV) and I came across the word "atonement" in Romans. It seemed like an odd place for that word, so I decided to check the Greek to see if it's accurate. Explain to me, if you would, what the word should be, and then explain to me (etymologically) the difference between atonement and the word that should be there, (providing scriptural references, of course). This should be a good warm-up.
G2643
êáôáëëáãÞ
katallageô
kat-al-lag-ay'From G2644; exchange (figuratively adjustment), that is, restoration to (the
divine) favor:?atonement, reconciliation (-ing).
G2644
êáôáëëÜóóù
katallassoô
kat-al-las'-so
From G2596 and G236; to change mutually, that is, (figuratively) to
compound a difference:?reconcile.
You see the above references, explain to me why you think it odd that a word that depicts the same
meaning makes it odd to you?
You may think that this is not accurate but that is your opinion. If you feel that their should be a different word, thats your problem not mine. But thats OK.
The reading doesnt IMHO loose its message. Strongs Exhaustive Concordance agrees.
So whats your point?
The scripture you quoted should be the least of your worries as a Mormon.
You said this should be a "good warm up" Somehow I'm not feeling "outmatched"
E.
