1st/2nd century church

[Proverbs]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Strangite church, is a denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement and a part of the Mormon faith. The Strangite church is distinct from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is larger and better-known, although both organizations claim to be the original church established by Joseph Smith, Jr., on April 6, 1830. The Strangite church is headquartered in an area of Burlington, Wisconsin known as Voree.

(Wikipedia)

Strangites are a break off of our faith(And they'd say we ar ea break off of theirs). They even call themselves "LDS". Do you have ANY other modern church besides LDS? or break offs of the LDS faith? Is that your only example?

I neither approve of baptisms for the dead in any situation currently, nor in any situation in the past. I do not now, and have never, "sneered" at the practices of any other faith, however, and true to the teachings of my childhood, allow others to practice their own religions freely, and with respect, whether or not I agree with them.

I never claimed you "sneered" but from your last post it is obvious that you do. You sneered at what a Unity Church member did or is doing. I personally see nothing wrong with a Chaplain baptizing the dead. While it is weird to me that they use the actual corpses some in the early christian church did too. I recall one of the scholarly papers I read people would stand behind the corpse and answer for them prior to baptism.

It is not an approved practice of any mainstream Christian church currently to my knowledge, as none would find approved precedent for it in the early Christian church.

That's probably because they do not read the bible as often as they should. (Sarcasm). It is in the scriptures.

[ave maria]

I never claimed you "sneered" but from your last post it is obvious that you do.

[ave maria]

I personally see nothing wrong with a Chaplain baptizing the dead. While it is weird to me that they use the actual corpses some in the early christian church did too.

Proverbs--

Respectfully, you might be missing the point about it be a chaplain at a late-term abortion clinic.

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Catholic belief on abortion, particularly late-term abortion, would never attribute the practice or the chaplaincy, or approval of the same, to the Catholic Church, or an individual Catholic.

[ave maria]

It is not an approved practice of any mainstream Christian church currently to my knowledge, as none would find approved precedent for it in the early Christian church.

That's probably because they do not read the bible as often as they should. (Sarcasm). It is in the scriptures.

The key word here is approved.

On this point, people of good faith and good will can and do disagree.

If you'd like to explore Paul's attitude toward baptism for the dead, that's likely another thread.

If you're suggesting that the scripture cites approval for the practice, I'd simply say you might inquire why Paul used the term "they" instead of "we."

I'd also add a point that I believe no one else has made previously on this thread regarding baptism for the dead, and that is that it's generally assumed that anyone engaging in it as even a heretical practice in the early days of Christianity presumed to baptize someone who was not previously Christian into the Christian faith.

Latter-day Saints, however, do not presume to do the same. Literally thousands of the names they harvest from various sources are those that have been previously baptized in Christian faiths (in fact, it's frequently baptismal records of various parish churches that are culled to acquire the same). So what they intend with the practice is somewhat different than what anyone at the time of early Christianity intended.

[Zakuska]

If you're suggesting that the scripture cites approval for the practice, I'd simply say you might inquire why Paul used the term "they" instead of "we."

Ahh the old "they" vs "we" symantec Game.

1 Corinthians 15:29 (New International Version)

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

Paul only says that there are "those" who are doing it. Not much can be gleaned from that. Becuase there are those at Corinth as well as other places who are doing it of which some are "we".

Also... Pretty Lame argument when you consider your very Quote on the matter Ave.

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul's text as follows: "Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?" The archbishop comments, as follows: "It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet's Dissertation on the matter). In the first place, every interpretation referring the words 'baptized', or 'dead' to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice. Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism. The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. 'Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum'. This interpretation -- the one adopted by St. Chrysostom--has the advantage of giving the words 'baptized' and 'dead' their literal signification. The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (vi, 2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word. There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words 'baptism' and 'dead' in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word 'baptism' is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself -- 'I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized', etc. And the word 'dead' is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words 'for the dead', uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation. These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture" (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Paul a Jew and the Jews practicing proxy Baptism for their kindred dead. Adds quite a bit of context to what Paul was saying now doesn't it?

[Pahoran]

Havent Catholic nurses done the same thing?

I seem to recall someone on one of these boards who almost died at birth and the nurse without asking the parents Baptized him catholic.

Baptism in danger of death is a very different thing from baptism of corpses.

So is Baptism for the Dead.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If you'd like to explore Paul's attitude toward baptism for the dead, that's likely another thread.

If you're suggesting that the scripture cites approval for the practice, I'd simply say you might inquire why Paul used the term "they" instead of "we."

I'm sorry, but that's a blind alley. There is no "they" in the Greek; that is an artifact of the translation, necessary to put together a coherent English sentence. The actual phrase in the Greek is:

Hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron

Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones." The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.

I'd also add a point that I believe no one else has made previously on this thread regarding baptism for the dead, and that is that it's generally assumed that anyone engaging in it as even a heretical practice in the early days of Christianity presumed to baptize someone who was not previously Christian into the Christian faith.

Latter-day Saints, however, do not presume to do the same.  Literally thousands of the names they harvest from various sources are those that have been previously baptized in Christian faiths (in fact, it's frequently baptismal records of various parish churches that are culled to acquire the same).  So what they intend with the practice is somewhat different than what anyone at the time of early Christianity intended.

Well AM, either you're making a distinction without a meaningful difference, or you really don't know this, which is entirely possible; but there is such a thing as a non-valid baptism.

Yes, really there is.

To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority. Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again. (See Acts 19:1-5.)

As do we.

All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dunamis]

This thread has had two moderators in it. This thread slid into personal attacks within the first page. Get back on track and stay there please. Ave Maria has been queued and has deleted moderator comments so I will repeat them here. We obviously do not react to sarcasm and generic smart mouthing or the board would cease to exist. What we will not tolerate is beginning a thread with personal attacks on more than one poster and ending it by using personal information about another poster's life as ad hominem, posting identifying information about another and attaching random names to moderators. We will always have personality conflicts on this board. That is not an excuse to violate board policy. Now back to business.

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

Paul a Jew and the Jews practicing proxy Baptism for their kindred dead. Adds quite a bit of context to what Paul was saying now doesn't it?

Their is no evidence that Paul or any of the other apostles practiced baptism for the dead.

[johnny]

Pahoran  writes,

Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones." The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.

The Bible does not support that Paul practiced baptism for the dead.

To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority. Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again. (See Acts 19:1-5.)

Proper authority is not needed for baptism ... since this off-topic open another thread and I will be glad to discuss it.

All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?

(1) Do you think God want us to baptize the dead? Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny.

(2)The Catholic Church obviously is authorized to baptize ... open another thread and let's talk.

[johnny]

Dunamis  writes,

Get back on track and stay there please.

To get back on track ...

The Early Church Fathers do not support the following LDS teachings:

- men can become another God like the Heavenly Father

- the apostles practiced baptism for the dead

- an apostasy as described by the LDS church

- a restoration as described by the LDS church

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are three Gods

The Early Church Fathers do support the following teachings:

- the Father, the Son, and the HG are not three Gods

- Real Presence of the flesh in the Bread

- The bread and wine transubstantiation

- Infant Baptism

- Apostolic Succession

- Purgatory

- Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Devotion and intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary

- Original Sin

- Ex Nihilo(Creation out of Nothing)

[Zakuska]

So you don't think Paul himself practiced Jewish washing rituals for his Kindred dead?

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

So you don't think Paul himself practiced Jewish washing rituals for his Kindred dead?

Are you talking before or after his conversion ... do you have scripture to support your ideas?

[Zakuska]

Do you disagree with your catholic website?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes,

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

The practice was actual ... but was not an apostolic practice.

[Zakuska]

Would Paul rely on an error to prove a truth?

[johnny]

Zakuska  writes, 

Would Paul rely on an error to prove a truth?

The Catholic Encylopedia describe it this way:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

There seems to be no question here of any such absurd custom as conferring baptism on corpses, as was practiced later by some heretical sects.

[Zakuska]

Yep and this comes in the Parapgraph following that...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism.

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

[johnny]

Magyar writes,

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

What do you mean by "false practice" ... it was a true practice that was practiced by some, just like infant baptism was a true practice by some.

[Zakuska]

Did you mean Zakuska?

You call it a "false evil pagan practice".

[Zakuska]

Magyar writes,

The Jews practiced it Paul was a Jew. Why would he rely on a false practice to prove a truth?

What do you mean by "false practice" ... it was a true practice that was practiced by some, just like infant baptism was a true practice by some.

I must save this post for posterity... Johnny has made another flip flop.

There never was an infant Baptized in the Bible.

Christ put his hands on them and blessed them because they where already part of the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10

13

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

[johnny]

Zakuska writes,

The Bible also does not support the claim that Paul attacked or disapproved of the practice, either. Rather, he cites it as evidence of the resurrection of the dead. How could that be, if it were anything other than an authoritative practice?

It was an actual practice, it was not a Christian authoritative practice.

On the contrary, the question of validity of a baptism is certainly relevant to the point at issue. The "intent" of the early saints was to confer a valid baptism upon those who had not received one. Our "intent" is the same. Your bald assertion does not negate the scriptural record, which unequivocally shows that those who had received a non-valid baptism needed a valid one. And the sticking point certainly seems to have been the authority by which the original baptisms were administered.

I would agree on the issue of a valid baptism ... that is why the Catholic Church does not consider a LDS baptism as valid.

But I know, without a doubt, that God does indeed want us to baptize on behalf of the dead. (That's what that "huper" means.)

Why does God want us to baptize on behalf of the dead ... is it going to change their eternal destination?

And if, through no fault of his own, a man is unable to fulfill some necessary requirement in his lifetime, is the grace of God then at an end for him?

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. Those who have died without Baptism we to trust in God's mercy.

That's certainly not obvious to me. But whether it is or not, the fact remains that, since baptizing those who had not been validly baptized is the biblical practice,

This example is for those alive ... not for those who have died.

[Bertram]

It is ghedmondson's Birthday to-day......so may i wish him all the best!... and may he have many many more....

The Board is uncertain of the Gender...but I read one of his Posts which claims that when on a Mission he was paired up with a Companion, who...(QUOTE).."HE spoke very little Spanish or English...".....

I therefore assume it was Male/Male?????

So Board Administrators......HE has a Birthday to-day!!!...

He has not posted for some time...back in 2005...I wonder where he is and what he is doing with his Life?...