Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
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.
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.
Jana Riess wrote an interesting article about the sharp decline in Anti Mormon literature being published. Her theories are that with Mormonism's slowing growth, declining Evangelical concerns about "right theology" and other factors. Others pointed out that in the U.S. Evangelicals are declining as well. It's an interesting article and would love to hear others thoughts.
By Five Solas
At my church in Seattle, we’re currently wrapping up a sermon series on Galatians. For those unfamiliar, it’s the ninth book of the New Testament, written as a letter to early Christians living in Galatia in the mid first Century AD. The book is widely agreed by scholars to be an authentic example of the Apostle Paul’s writing.
In it, Paul addresses a controversy that arose in the early Church. Certain people were arguing for a “different gospel” (1:6) wherein Christians were required to adhere to “the law” as revealed in the Old Testament, including circumcision. Notably, even the Apostle Peter (“Cephas”) appears to have been at least briefly persuaded by this grace + works argument (2:12).
Paul is scandalized by this turn of events, arguing in response that God’s grace is unearned and undeserved, to be received by faith (2:16). He argues faith itself is God’s free gift, that this is “the truth of the gospel” (2:5, 14). He shows anger over those who reject this, saying they cannot expect to be saved (1:8, 5:4).
In my own experience, I think how often we resolve controversy by finding positives on each side of an argument and saying—“you’re both right.” Both sides need to compromise a little and resolution is thereby found in a new synthesis. But not here, not for Paul, not when the real Gospel is at stake.
Contrast Paul’s no-quarter approach with that of the late LDS prophet & president, Gordon B. Hinckley, “You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.” Because for Paul, any additions to the real Gospel are actually subtractions from grace—negating the work of Christ.
One last thing. If you haven’t read Galatians (or read it in a while)—I’d highly recommend a translation wherein you can readily understand the language. I typically use the English Standard Version (ESV), but I often refer to the Catholic New American Bible as well. The 400+ year-old King James Version included in the LDS “standard works” is itself largely copied from the even earlier work of William Tyndale and is by now quite hard to read and understand, given the ongoing evolution of the English language (the cynic in me sometimes thinks the LDS Church is quite satisfied to keep it this way for its membership).
All thoughts welcome.