Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tana

Baptism for the dead.

Recommended Posts

Careful how you question this scripture. If you cast doubt on the truth and/or validity of this scripture (1 Cor 15:29) you open the door to questioning any other scripture that doesn't fit your beliefs. And then the whole of scripture might collapse!

One problem I have with people who attempt to say that this scripture is not talking about a true doctrine but a belief held only by the Corinthians is how can you prove the resurrection is true by citing a false doctrine? That would be like saying that 2 + 2 = 5 therefore 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 10. And then, when the person you are talking to realizes that you used a false doctrine to prove a true doctrine, will they come to the conclusion that the true doctrine must also be false? This is the problems you have when you cast doubt on this scripture. First, you undermine the true doctrine of the resurrection by trying to say that the doctrine used to show that it is true is false. Second, you cast doubt on all other scriptures because they might contain false doctrines even though their conclusions are true.

You cannot use a false doctrine to prove a true doctrine. If you do, then the true doctrine is also false since it is tainted by the false doctrine. You can only use true doctrines to prove the truth of true doctrine.

Marvin

Baptism for a dead person is not biblical and that is why there is no other scripture to back this doctrine or tradition in the mouth of two or three biblical witness!

You can't just take one single scripture and invent a doctrine out of it!

So now can you answer my questions??

one love

Share this post


Link to post

It does not say that any one must be baptized for someone else. I can't help it if the Bible lacks certain details. That's why we need a prophet

Share this post


Link to post

So you're claiming that Jesus will save the disobedient?! That is not biblical. If baptism is obedience, and some fail to be baptized, they will not be saved.

But you have not even begun to address the issue of Peter's saying that water baptism "doth now also save us." His words, not mine.

That's not biblical. It's an invention of the reformers, who, knowing they had no Priesthood (or even priesthood) decided that they needed to ignore all the ceremonies of the past, including baptism, which is a requirement for salvation.

Lehi

The bible teaches that believing and faith is what brings salvation not getting wet!

But after getting wet a real christian would want to get baptize or wet because of what they already recieved and are already saved and redeemed!

one love

Share this post


Link to post

Who says it was a "Pagan" ritual? According to Christians it was a Christian practice.

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"

my source:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/baptism_history.html

one love

Share this post


Link to post

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"

my source:

http://www.lightplan...sm_history.html

one love

Key words bolded above... Continue reading...

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes. Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul's reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor. 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, "taking account of the resurrection," makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)To this could be added that the next link in Paul's argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor. 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil. 2:17, Rom. 15:16, cf. Col. 1:24).

Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul's remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

Not a very good idea to site an article that undermines your own argument.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Key words bolded above... Continue reading...

Not a very good idea to site an article that undermines your own argument.

:P

But the context of 1 Cor 15 is talking about this pagan cult or those in the pagan temples doing such things as a baptism to the dead and other sacraficing infants and etc in those temples Paul is talking about and revealing in corithians!

one love

Share this post


Link to post

But the context of 1 Cor 15 is talking about this pagan cult or those in the pagan temples doing such things as a baptism to the dead and other sacraficing infants and etc in those temples Paul is talking about and revealing in corithians!

one love

So then explain why most Christian exegetes don't take the view you do? And admit the practice was happening with in the church at large. From Spain to Asia and not just in Corinth?

Share this post


Link to post

So then explain why most Christian exegetes don't take the view you do? And admit the practice was happening with in the church at large. From Spain to Asia and not just in Corinth?

Do a research and see if they were Christian churches or not!

one love

Share this post


Link to post

Do a research and see if they were Christian churches or not!

one love

It seems quite evident by your own source that they were in fact Christian churches. Which still leaves you with the questions of:

So then explain why most Christian exegetes don't take the view you do? And admit the practice was happening with in the church at large. From Spain to Asia and not just in Corinth?

Share this post


Link to post

Do a research and see if they were Christian churches or not!

one love

They were Christian churches. Epiphanies was a priest from Alexandria who went on a tour of the churches through Europe and Asia and IIRC this was written in a journal he had upon his return to Alexandria.

Another early Christian evidence for the practice of baptism for the dead is from texts that reference the practice among a group known as the Marcionites. This group was a separate Christian body from the Church of Rome, who followed the teachings of Marcion (ca. 110-160) as their spiritual leader (sometimes referenced as Marcion of Sinope). The writings of Marcion are lost, so the information we have about him and his followers comes largely from the writings of others. Marcion was a Christian theologian, a ship owner, may have been the son of the bishop in Sinope, and was consecrated a bishop himself. He gathered a large following but was excommunicated from the Church of Rome in 144 as a heretic, apparently because his beliefs about the gospel clashed with the bishops of Rome. His following was strong, however, and continued to expand even after Marcion

Share this post


Link to post
So is there any other honest and humble mormons here to help or claim the truth??

You have received honest answers and you reject them because they are not what you want to hear. It is not Lehi, or any other LDS participants here, who lack humility.

And your manners leave a great deal to be desired.

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"

my source:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/baptism_history.html

one love

Thank you, evangelist. Unlike most of your posts, this at least approaches a substantive contribution, and not more of your ringing, but vacuous, assertions.

Note that the best you can do is point out that the various commentators simply cannot agree on what the passage means. What does "forty distinct explanations" tell you? It tells me that your sources are falling over themselves to come up with something; it doesn't matter what it is, anything at all will do, just as long as it isn't the plain sense of the verse.

Note that the operative phrase in the Greek is:

hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron.

This means, "The being-baptized ones on behalf of those dead ones." Not the baptizee's own body; not to rejoin those who have died; but clearly an action by the living on behalf of the dead.

I realise that your version of Christianity does not understand this wonderful principle, and has no ability to act on it. This is sad, but it merely reflects the fact that your particular apostate faction, cut off from the source of revealed truth, has no life in it.

Please don't let your jealousy mislead you into zealotry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

It seems quite evident by your own source that they were in fact Christian churches. Which still leaves you with the questions of:

Many churchy are still doing things which are against God will and against His teachings!

For instance infant baptism is not biblical, but some churches still do this ritual, like the Catholic church and others!

one love

Share this post


Link to post

Many churchy are still doing things which are against God will and against His teachings!

For instance infant baptism is not biblical, but some churches still do this ritual, like the Catholic church and others!

one love

Which regresses to the previous question since it is then Christian Churches practicing this; why would one reference the practice (if it were false) as a reason to show the reality of the resurrection?

Share this post


Link to post

So is there any other honest and humble mormons here to help or claim the truth??

You have been answered, whether you accept the answer or not. Move on.

Share this post


Link to post

Which regresses to the previous question since it is then Christian Churches practicing this; why would one reference the practice (if it were false) as a reason to show the reality of the resurrection?

It is just a shadow of what God will !

Is circucission still a requirement?

one love

Share this post


Link to post

So is there any other honest and humble mormons here to help or claim the truth??

one love

What is your purpose here exactly? Are you here to preach the truth?

Share this post


Link to post

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood "the dead" to refer to one's own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism "for the sake of joining" lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: "Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?"

my source:

http://www.lightplan...sm_history.html

one love

Your point?

Because you seem to completely ignore the next part of the source:

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes. Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul's reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor. 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, "taking account of the resurrection," makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)

To this could be added that the next link in Paul's argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor. 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil. 2:17, Rom. 15:16, cf. Col. 1:24).

Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul's remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

Share this post


Link to post

What is your purpose here exactly? Are you here to preach the truth?

NO! But should I just take negative faith without any commits?

one love

Share this post


Link to post

As I am studying other religions i am shocked at the things they teach and profess is true in us of the bible!

I do give more credit so far for Islam because at least they don't use a bible they have their own doctrines based on a koran alone even though that book is also not of God or the will of God!

i deal with many people hundred and thousands who are ex-mormons and ex-catholics .JW and satanist,and ex muslim so I have to also get some information from their old side to get their mind renewed and free in Christ Jesus , and in the truth!

So I use a flip flop system!

one love

Share this post


Link to post

NO! But should I just take negative faith without any commits?

one love

What is negative faith?

Share this post


Link to post

It is just a shadow of what God will !

Is circucission still a requirement?

one love

I'm sorry this makes no sense. You have not answered the question I have reiterated (yet again), but instead ask an irrelevant question.

Share this post


Link to post

In the thread "Weak Spots in Mormon Theology" I posted:

"I've always thought baptism for the dead was an odd thing. It feels more like the attempts of a well intentioned believer trying to reconcile the problem of the countless souls left out of heaven because of the baptism ritual mandate".

Deborah responded with:

"Or a just and loving God wanting all his children of every generation to not be left out of heaven because they couldn't personally participate in a rite that was necessary".

My thinking is, The baptism ritual is either a symbolic ritual a persons submits to in order to show submission and contrition, or it is a mechanical, physical, cause and effect type production that the physical body must go through to physically, mechanically enter heaven.

If it is physical, mechanical, then how could baptizing another in proxy effect a change in the physical body or spirit body of another?

If it is a symbolic ritual, then what's the point in having another submit in proxy, why not just ask the soul in person to say yea or nay?

Curt

Sins must be

Share this post


Link to post

It is just a shadow of what God will !

Is circucission still a requirement?

one love

Yes. But not the kind of circumcision you are thinking.

Romans 2:29

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Share this post


Link to post

If circumcision of the heart & spirit under the new covenant in Christ (for those who accept Him) vs. the physical aspect of literal circumcision of males under the old covenant was changed, then one could make the same connection to what is required of living vs. the dead in baptism.

D&C 20 (LDS D&C 22), talks of baptism under the old covenant, "Although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works." I realize this scripture is in relation more to those previously baptized in other churches, however when one considers that dead persons are baptized by proxy in the LDS/Mormon church multiple times in the past, it brings on a new dimension to 'dead works'. Example: While trying to locate a date for Louisa Beaman's first baptism, the earliest account is the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. performing baptism for her while living. (Funny that it was 2 years after Joseph is claimed to marry her as a plural wife)It's also clearly mentioned in his journal. The LDS/Mormon ancestral file mentions at least 6 proxy baptisms performed for Louisa after her death. Another Example: While living in Nauvoo, the relief society president for the stake happened to be my supervisor at work. She shared a story about her dead non-Mormon father declaring that he had no intentions of ever joining the LDS/Mormon church & that figured it didn't matter anyway, as he knew inspite of his wishes that his daughter would likely do proxy work for him anyway. Sure enough, she did.

Baptism for the Dead is like:

Buying car insurance for a car that was already in an accident.

Buying a lottery ticket with the winning numbers from yesterday.

All these things done by someone else in your behalf. In concept...all those 'dead works' performed by proxy had no value if not recognized as valid or if the dead individual doesn't acknowledge them. That's like buying stock in a company that already bought the farm.

NauvooSaint

Share this post


Link to post

What is negative faith?

Belief which contradicts the bible is negative faith!

one love

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...