Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'paul'.
Found 3 results
Why is there NO record of what Paul and Nero said? Seems odd no one present would have written it down (Romans, Scribes, Pharisees, Jews, Christians, etc.). Maybe it was burned in the Fire of Rome? I can understand if no Christians wanted to go with Paul due to, ya know, Nero (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Acts_of_the_Apostles/Paul_Before_Nero) but Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha - dont fail me now? Seems odd that Paul wouldn't write down at least part of it, though it may have been similar to his appeal before Agrippa.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a bit flummoxed by the apostle Paul, or so says Jana Riess. Among other reasons, she says, “Contemporary Latter-day Saints like their New Testament to resemble in every particular the structure and leadership of their own 21st-century church, so it’s discomfiting to realize that Paul’s apostleship was entirely of the self-proclaimed, charismatic variety. Paul’s leadership self-help bestseller could be broken down into three basic stages. Step One: Have a vision of Jesus. Step Two: Stop persecuting Christians and become one. Step Three: Put yourself in charge of the movement you just joined five minutes ago. “In Latter-day Saint eyes, the first two are fine, and the third is damnable heresy. Why, there are channels of authority! There is an expected chain of command! Paul never even met Jesus, for crying out loud; the Savior was long crucified before Paul came on the scene. Yet the Bible wants us to believe that God chose this aggressive outsider in addition to the Twelve, many of whom had actually walked with Jesus and paid their dues. “Even more troublingly from the correlated perspective, Paul considered other people, including women, to be leaders in the church. He called women his fellow laborers, and named them as deacons and even apostles. Junia in Romans 16 is one hotly contested example. In fact, that whole chapter of Romans is filled with women — and that whole chapter is ignored in the new curriculum, which pragmatically advises that we read Romans 12 to 16 to find ‘one or two’ aspects that can teach us ‘how Saints should live.’” https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/08/02/jana-riess-reasons/
1 Corinthians 15: 29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead? So Paul is writing to the saints in Corinth. He's referencing a practice/ordinance they were at least aware of if not familiar with. Who is Paul referencing? Which group of saints (probably more than one?)? Read somewhere that the font at Solomon's Temple wasn't used for baptisms for the dead (Levitical does not equal Melchezidek authority, for another thread, please.) And Joseph Smith et al. didn't use a Temple for this ordinance at first, so a Temple wasn't required per se. Hone’s Apocryphal New Testament which I haven't read, but believe some of you likely have, has some apocryphal references like Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and Gospel of Nicodemus Baptism for the Dead what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29. baptized for those who are dead, D&C 124:29. in relation to the baptism for your dead, D&C 127:5. baptism for the dead, D&C 128:1. vicarious baptism for the remission, D&C 138:33. See also John 3:1–10; 5:25–29.