MARK 1:4 JOHN'S BAPTISM

[bbyrd009]

Well, gee--why would I have "hard feelings" about being called a Mithraist and an idolator who worships a brass snake.

LC, I doubt I'm out from under Nehushtan myself ok, you are maybe taking this more personally than I meant. It's really not about you at all ok. Have a good day

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The NIV is one of the worst English translations out there.

Yes, the new one is terrible. The original NIV is apparently much better. My Jewish-Christian friend who reads Hebrew, says that the original NIV is very similar to the Hebrew of her Tanakh.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

LC, I doubt I'm out from under Nehushtan myself ok, you are maybe taking this more personally than I meant. It's really not about you at all ok. Have a good day

Would you like to explain what you mean when you say that someone is "under Nehushtan" then?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The NIV is one of the worst English translations out there.

Which NIV--the original or the new one? And what don't you like about it?

 

[bbyrd009]

Would you like to explain what you mean when you say that someone is "under Nehushtan" then?

Ah, I hesitate bc I am not sure I have the best perception there myself, but I have learned to detect some symptoms...um, symptom relief will be prevalent--as opposed to cause elimination?--and also there will be plenty of symptoms I guess. Complaints iow. "Anywhere but here" is one, phobias of others and/or perceiving any others as "enemies" would be another prolly. Camp would also be a central fixture, anyone in a "camp" if that makes any sense.

Really I'm just following the Exodus acct and reduxing here basically ok. this is a hard subject bc one must needs start at "I am a hypocrite" imo.

But the snakes' symbolism has changed for us now I guess, snakes meant something else then, which vastly obscures truth here imo. I've searched the subject and not really found any returns I like yet, even the Abarim's...maybe @icxn has some insight here

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Ah, I hesitate bc I am not sure I have the best perception there myself, but I have learned to detect some symptoms...um, symptom relief will be prevalent--as opposed to cause elimination?--and also there will be plenty of symptoms I guess. Complaints iow. "Anywhere but here" is one, phobias of others and/or perceiving any others as "enemies" would be another prolly. Camp would also be a central fixture, anyone in a "camp" if that makes any sense.

I think what you have described is "tribalism" which was carried to extreme in ancient Israel, when even the Tribes of Israel went to war with each other. Because the wicked ways of their enemies had invaded them (after they failed to eradicate evil from their ranks as they had been warned to do by God) strife and war followed. Their enemy was supposed to be the wicked heathen who were bent on destroying God's people. For Christians, "...our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12) This was a significant step forward for mankind.

The great Russian writer, Leo Tolstoy, in one of his last works, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You (based on the Luke 17:21 passage stating the same), said that the modern church is a "heretical creation". He especially deplored the state church (the merging of the Russian Orthodox Church with the imperial crown of Russia). This work of Tolstoy's was promptly banned, of course. The French writer/philosopher, René Girard also spoke against tribalism and said it is a feature of what he called "mimetic rivalry". A Christian could summarize it as, "Sin is contagious and the more 'other' a group is seen to be, the more likely it is that we will be tempted to hate them." While God apparently viewed eliminating Israel's rivals as a necessity, He never told them to hate their opponents. In fact, He appeared to approve of their turning some of their enemies into friends, if they were willing. I can think of one such in Rahab the prostitute who became one of the ancestors of Jesus. Another would be the very loyal, Uriah the Hittite who King David abused so terribly--provoking God to fuming anger against David.

Really I'm just following the Exodus acct and reduxing here basically ok. this is a hard subject bc one must needs start at "I am a hypocrite" imo.

Hypocrisy has always been a problem among God's people and will likely continue to be until He puts the Eternal State in place and comes here to live among us in the New Jerusalem. Blame-shifting seems to be a part of our nature since the Fall of mankind. Adam shifts the blame to Eve--"it was that woman you gave me"--(and not so subtly blaming God Himself). Eve shifts the blame to the serpent (which, interestingly, God accepts and punishes the Satanic serpent). But, it is apparent that God holds Adam most responsible for the Fall when He says, "Because you listened to your wife..."

But the snakes' symbolism has changed for us now I guess, snakes meant something else then, which vastly obscures truth here imo. I've searched the subject and not really found any returns I like yet, even the Abarim's...maybe @icxn has some insight here

Not sure what you mean here. Can you explain further?

 

[bbyrd009]

Not sure what you mean here. Can you explain further?

Well, kinda hard, we perceive "snake = bad" now, but that is likely not how they saw snakes. It's in um nahash I think it is, plus "satan's dialectic" is also involved imo. Near as I can tell at the moment our nearest equivalent might be "logical" or "Greek" thought, there is a way that seems right to a man, that ends in death maybe. The amazing name Nahash: meaning and etymology, particularly the etymology area, where it gets into what diviners (which most or many professing Christians likely are) seek v what a seeker seeks. "Selective facts, that exclude all others in order to achieve a certain agenda" might be another valid expression here.

But I would say that like Nehushtan, I would not perceive this as a sin so much as a phase we all go through

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Well, kinda hard, we perceive "snake = bad" now, but that is likely not how they saw snakes.

Snake worship was widespread among the earth's people groups, as it even is today among some. Christian missionaries have long warred against it because, of all pagan customs, the ones associated with snake worship were some of the worst. Perhaps it goes back to the Garden of Eden, and those groups decided that the wrong side was the right side? Satan is a wily adversary. Jesus said that Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

It's in um nahash I think it is, plus "satan's dialectic" is also involved imo. Near as I can tell at the moment our nearest equivalent might be "logical" or "Greek" thought, there is a way that seems right to a man, that ends in death maybe.

Satan is said to be greatly intelligent, but that he is cold and full of hate against all that God has declared to be good (i.e. like Him).

The amazing name Nahash: meaning and etymology, particularly the etymology area, where it gets into what diviners (which most or many professing Christians likely are) seek v what a seeker seeks. "Selective facts, that exclude all others in order to achieve a certain agenda" might be another valid expression here.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is our protection against such things. Without His indwelling presence, we can't even say that we are Christians (Romans 8:9).

But I would say that like Nehushtan, I would not perceive this as a sin so much as a phase we all go through

I think that the politicization of churches has been a problem since the beginning (see the Letters to the Seven Churches of Revelation) but, Christ has taken His chaste Bride out of the churches. He washed "her" by His Blood, and the water of His word. She is inhabited by His Holy Spirit and will be forevermore in Christ's care.

By the way, the linked article that you posted was written by a liar. Whoever it was, said that David "murdered" the inhabitants of the Ammonite city of Rabbah "in the most horrendous ways" and cites 2 Samuel 12:31. I looked up the reference (in a number of translations) and it said that David forced them into slavery--which was almost universal among conquered people in ancient times. The Israelites would have been fortunate to have been merely forced into slavery had the Ammonites been victorious instead. You need to be careful of what you expose your mind to, bbyrd. There is an old adage that applies: "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

*A further note: It could be that the author of the article was merely ignorant, but I wonder if the purpose wasn't deception as only the KJV makes it sound like David tortured them. The other translations make it clear that those were the tools that they used in their labor as slaves, not items of torture. It should also be noted that David was unlikely to torture the conquered people as they had been forbidden to do so by God, even though the Israelites had been subjected to very cruel torture by their conquerors. Assyria was the most notorious for that kind of thing among the ancient empires.

 

[farouk]

I think that the politicization of churches has been a problem since the beginning (see the Letters to the Seven Churches of Revelation) but, Christ has taken His chaste Bride out of the churches. He washed "her" by His Blood, and the water of His word. She is inhabited by His Holy Spirit and will be forevermore in Christ's care.

I wish that gatherings of the Lord's people could be truly politician-free zones...

 

[Doug]

Another doozy by Doug. You failed to include the Gentiles.

Hi

Maybe you are right but look at this verse

Leviticus 17:8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,

This verse says the house of Israel OR the strangers (Gentile proselytes). The strangers are distinguished from the house of Israel.

Now look at Ezekiel 36:22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

The house of Israel is being addressed.

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

It is the house of Israel given a new heart.

 

[bbyrd009]

By the way, the linked article that you posted was written by a liar. Whoever it was, said that David "murdered" the inh

• Lastly there is Nahash the father of Shobi, who appears to be a leader in Rabbah at the time of David (2 Samuel 17:27). But the Ammonite city of Rabbah had been conquered just years prior, and its citizens murdered in the most horrendous ways (2 Samuel 12:31). It seems odd to assume that a son of the deposed king would still rule it, and this Nahash is either someone else, or Shobi was a princely member of an Ammonite resistance movement that's otherwise not recognized.

so, I don't see David doing anything, and I do see killing in the 2 Samuel ref, sorry. The only ref to David I find is that he spoke well of king Nahash of Ammon, in a different reference,

• The king of Ammon during the early years of Saul is called Nahash (1 Samuel 11:1). The Biblical record pictures him as not a very nice guy, but years later David seems to keep him in high regard (2 Samuel 10:2).

to a different Nahash, and maybe we should review the opening line,
"The name Nahash occurs in the Bible twice (or three times) as a personal name, and one time as the name of a city:

• The full name of the city is Ir-nahash (1 Chronicles 4:12).
• The king of Ammon during the early years of Saul is called Nahash (1 Samuel 11:1). The Biblical record pictures him as not a very nice guy, but years later David seems to keep him in high regard (2 Samuel 10:2).
• Curiously enough, around the same time there is Nahash the father of Zeruiah and Abigail (2 Samuel 17:25), who elsewhere are reckoned daughters of Jesse and sisters of David (1 Chronicles 2:16). See the article on Jesse for a discussion of this conundrum.
• Lastly there is Nahash the father of Shobi, who appears to be a leader in Rabbah at the time of David (2 Samuel 17:27). But the Ammonite city of Rabbah had been conquered just years prior, and its citizens murdered in the most horrendous ways (2 Samuel 12:31). It seems odd to assume that a son of the deposed king would still rule it, and this Nahash is either someone else, or Shobi was a princely member of an Ammonite resistance movement that's otherwise not recognized."

 

[bbyrd009]

*A further note: It could be that the author of the article was merely ignorant, but I wonder if the purpose wasn't deception

yes, ty. If you find anything that actually does not check out lemme know k

 

[bbyrd009]

The amazing name Nahash: meaning and etymology, particularly the etymology area

which starts here,

Etymology of the name Nahash

below the top section, and you might even note the pains the author has taken to qualify his statements in the section you ref, fwiw. Not that I agree with all of his interps bam, but the material statements are usually pretty bullet proof seems like

 

[bbyrd009]

particularly
"
נחש II
It's not clear what came first, the verb or the noun (whether the verb נחש, nahash II, is a root-verb yielding the masculine noun נחש, nahash, or that the verb is denominative, formed from the noun). But the verb means to conduct divination or read omen, which was common practice in ancient times (Genesis 30:27, 44:5, 1 Kings 20:33), yet strongly condemned by the various Biblical legislators (Leviticus 19:26, Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Kings 17:17 and 21:6).

The noun נחש (nahash) means divination or enchantment and occurs only in the Balaam cycle (Numbers 23:23 and 24:1). "Balaam's way" is referred to twice in the New Testament (2 PETER 2:15 and REVELATION 2:14), and may in fact be the same as this art of divination and reading signs, which is still lavishly practiced today in fields ranging from the stock market to the church.

Knowledge that comes from the Lord has two distinct qualities by which it can be recognized: (1) It's understood in its context, and (2) it's never wrong. If a piece of wisdom is from the Lord, it can be explained logically and it works always and for everyone.

Someone who's in the know may advise, say, to not pass underneath a ladder because that could lead to misfortune. If that person is a diviner or a sign-reader, he will speak of bad luck and evil spirits and what not, and possibly advise you to also not pass through a triangular doorway, or quickly tap your chest in the shape of a square when your eyes fall upon something triangular. If that person has his knowledge from the Lord, however, he will explain you that a ladder stands there because someone is working up there. This worker may accidentally drop something, which will maim you if you happen to pass beneath it. The explainer may additionally advise you to also look out when you cross a street.

A diviner is not so much interested in getting the right information and with that protect and lead the people, but to secure a livelihood for himself by getting paid. The prime objective of a diviner is, therefore, not Truth but BELIEF (emp mine); the belief of his customers in him and his hocus-pocus. To achieve this, the diviner will dress in striking garb, wave elaborate symbols around, operate in impressive buildings and speak in esoteric wordings about punishments and diseases that will befall the infidels. His predictions will essentially be as accurate as a coin toss, but his statements will be vague enough to be explained both ways (this causes the majority of his predictions to be right). Correct predictions will be celebrated with great enthusiasm while incorrect predictions or ineffective measures will be explained away (a sick person who stays sick doesn't have enough faith, or opposing sprits are stronger than anticipated; all that). The worst part is that not all diviners are deliberate deceivers; many of them are their own greatest believers..." ibid

w/apologies to the op, done, sorry
ah, John's actual baptism is a little more brutal than our ritual anyway I guess lol

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

so, I don't see David doing anything, and I do see killing in the 2 Samuel ref, sorry. The only ref to David I find is that he spoke well of king Nahash of Ammon, in a different reference,

I guess you need to look at it again and make up your own mind. 2 Samuel 12:31 in various translations---> NIV: "and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking. David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then he and his entire army returned to Jerusalem." ESV: "And he brought out the people who were in it and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them toil at the brick kilns. And thus he did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." NLT: "He also made slaves of the people of Rabbah and forced them to labor with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. That is how he dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns. Then David and all the army returned to Jerusalem."

There are versions which express the idea that the Ammonites were executed--at least some in a very cruel way. I also checked the commentaries and some said that only the Ammonite soldiers were executed and the rest enslaved. Others said that only those Ammonites who "put their children through the fire" (they worshiped Melcom/Moloch) were forced into the brick kilns as punishment for burning innocent children there. In any case, I don't know that we will ever know for certain but David had a very strong sense of justice, yet was tender with children. It would seem out of character to do such a thing to the whole town of Rabbah. He may have actually done what it says in some of the versions (I even checked the Tanakh) but the Hebrew word for "therein" can mean just a part of the population.

 

[bbyrd009]

what did you go out into the wilderness to see?

on baptism btw
bye! have a fun trip ok.
and for when it's the worst; as you think, so are you

 

[bbyrd009]

I guess you need to look at it again and make up your own mind. 2 Samuel 12:31 in various translations---> NIV: "and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes, and he made them work at brickmaking. David did this to all the Ammonite towns. Then he and his entire army returned to Jerusalem." ESV: "And he brought out the people who were in it and set them to labor with saws and iron picks and iron axes and made them toil at the brick kilns. And thus he did to all the cities of the Ammonites. Then David and all the people returned to Jerusalem." NLT: "He also made slaves of the people of Rabbah and forced them to labor with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. That is how he dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns. Then David and all the army returned to Jerusalem."

There are versions which express the idea that the Ammonites were executed--at least some in a very cruel way. I also checked the commentaries and some said that only the Ammonite soldiers were executed and the rest enslaved. Others said that only those Ammonites who "put their children through the fire" (they worshiped Melcom/Moloch) were forced into the brick kilns as punishment for burning innocent children there. In any case, I don't know that we will ever know for certain but David had a very strong sense of justice, yet was tender with children. It would seem out of character to do such a thing to the whole town of Rabbah. He may have actually done what it says in some of the versions (I even checked the Tanakh) but the Hebrew word for "therein" can mean just a part of the population.

Ah, well now I'm caught up to David actually being the "murderer" there, ya I pretty much just absorb characterizations, I don't necessarily pay them any attn? I would let it inform my opinion of him now where it's pertinent though, obv he maybe has a thing about David lol. But then again David's ways there caused him to be passed over for the temple building too right

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Ah, well now I'm caught up to David actually being the "murderer" there, ya I pretty much just absorb characterizations, I don't necessarily pay them any attn? I would let it inform my opinion of him now where it's pertinent though, obv he maybe has a thing about David lol. But then again David's ways there caused him to be passed over for the temple building too right

Probably more for the incident with Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba as anything else. God might not have wanted an adulterer/murderer to build His Temple. In any case, if we are going to carry the discussion further, we should probably start a thread on it, instead of continuing to derail this thread.

 

[bbyrd009]

Probably more for the incident with Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba as anything else. God might not have wanted an adulterer/murderer to build His Temple. In any case, if we are going to carry the discussion further, we should probably start a thread on it, instead of continuing to derail this thread.

Well, why David could not build the temple is stated, when he asked, and yes I never meant to read any of that anyway,

particularly
"
נחש II
It's not clear what came first, the verb or the noun (whether the verb נחש, nahash II, is a root-verb yielding the masculine noun נחש, nahash, or that the verb is denominative, formed from the noun). But the verb means to conduct divination or read omen, which was common practice in ancient times (Genesis 30:27, 44:5, 1 Kings 20:33), yet strongly condemned by the various Biblical legislators (Leviticus 19:26, Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Kings 17:17 and 21:6).

The noun נחש (nahash) means divination or enchantment and occurs only in the Balaam cycle (Numbers 23:23 and 24:1). "Balaam's way" is referred to twice in the New Testament (2 PETER 2:15 and REVELATION 2:14), and may in fact be the same as this art of divination and reading signs, which is still lavishly practiced today in fields ranging from the stock market to the church.

Knowledge that comes from the Lord has two distinct qualities by which it can be recognized: (1) It's understood in its context, and (2) it's never wrong. If a piece of wisdom is from the Lord, it can be explained logically and it works always and for everyone.

Someone who's in the know may advise, say, to not pass underneath a ladder because that could lead to misfortune. If that person is a diviner or a sign-reader, he will speak of bad luck and evil spirits and what not, and possibly advise you to also not pass through a triangular doorway, or quickly tap your chest in the shape of a square when your eyes fall upon something triangular. If that person has his knowledge from the Lord, however, he will explain you that a ladder stands there because someone is working up there. This worker may accidentally drop something, which will maim you if you happen to pass beneath it. The explainer may additionally advise you to also look out when you cross a street.

A diviner is not so much interested in getting the right information and with that protect and lead the people, but to secure a livelihood for himself by getting paid. The prime objective of a diviner is, therefore, not Truth but BELIEF (emp mine); the belief of his customers in him and his hocus-pocus. To achieve this, the diviner will dress in striking garb, wave elaborate symbols around, operate in impressive buildings and speak in esoteric wordings about punishments and diseases that will befall the infidels. His predictions will essentially be as accurate as a coin toss, but his statements will be vague enough to be explained both ways (this causes the majority of his predictions to be right). Correct predictions will be celebrated with great enthusiasm while incorrect predictions or ineffective measures will be explained away (a sick person who stays sick doesn't have enough faith, or opposing sprits are stronger than anticipated; all that). The worst part is that not all diviners are deliberate deceivers; many of them are their own greatest believers..." ibid

w/apologies to the op, done, sorry
ah, John's actual baptism is a little more brutal than our ritual anyway I guess lol

Not that the David thing was not interesting...your objection there is that David is deemed a "murderer" by the author, right? And so @ that town I don't know, putting ppl under sharp implements etc sounds pretty close, and we know what he did to Uriah right, a brother/soldier, so no offense but I'm struggling to see the point there I guess, sorry.

So for what a "snake" meant to the ancients, particularly as a euphemism for a person, see Nahash II, but this would only give us a picture of how "snake" was used, and it was applied other ways too, although within the same conceptual lines I guess.

The relevance to our current understanding of "baptism" hopefully being apparent enough, obv if wolves or snakes (two diff types of ppl) are dictating our baptisms then some review might be in order maybe