<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why wasn&#8217;t the Savior baptized when He was eight?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://askgramps.org/why-wasnt-the-savior-baptized-when-he-was-eight/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://askgramps.org/why-wasnt-the-savior-baptized-when-he-was-eight/</link>
	<description>Moral answers to everyday concerns, curiosities, and uncertainties.  Gramps considers all questions on all topics from all sources.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 03:33:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: dunkonyerhed		</title>
		<link>https://askgramps.org/why-wasnt-the-savior-baptized-when-he-was-eight/#comment-32176</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dunkonyerhed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askgramps.org/why-wasnt-the-savior-baptized-when-he-was-eight/#comment-32176</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I almost always find myself agreeing with the answers I read on &quot;Ask Gramps&quot;. In this case, though, I have to disagree with the first part of the answer. I don&#039;t think it would have been a problem at all in the eternal scheme of things to allow John to be born a few years earlier in order to baptize Jesus when he was 8. I would say to that question - we just don&#039;t know. It could be that it was a cultural thing, it could be that Jesus didn&#039;t need to be baptized for the remission of sins, it could be that it marked the beginning of his ministry or something else.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I almost always find myself agreeing with the answers I read on &#8220;Ask Gramps&#8221;. In this case, though, I have to disagree with the first part of the answer. I don&#8217;t think it would have been a problem at all in the eternal scheme of things to allow John to be born a few years earlier in order to baptize Jesus when he was 8. I would say to that question &#8211; we just don&#8217;t know. It could be that it was a cultural thing, it could be that Jesus didn&#8217;t need to be baptized for the remission of sins, it could be that it marked the beginning of his ministry or something else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
