Is Baptism a necessary part of salvation according to the Bible?

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

False dilemma. Jesus quoted the Old Testament. In doing so, he was of course quoting his Word, which was also the Word of his Father. So the answer is, all of the above.

I have answered your question. Now, please answer mine. Do you deny that Jesus quoted the Old Testament?

Again

[stemelbow]

You wrote:

You have just made a claim: that there are plenty (of whom, you don't say: scholars? Mormons? skeptics?) who dispute whether we know what books the Jews considered Scripture in Jesus' time. Please provide a reference for this claim.

Josephus, the Jewish historian who was born about AD 37 and lived throughout the entire apostolic era, stated in his book Against Apion that the Jews recognized 22 books. The number 22 sounds way off from 39, but that is because the ancient Jews regarded as single books what we divide into separate books. Josephus recognized the 5 books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), 13 books of the Prophets (probably Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, The Twelve [minor prophets], Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Job, Daniel), and four poetic books (probably Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes). See Sid Z. Leiman, "Josephus and the Canon of the Bible," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 53-54. Many other such studies could be cited.

Well that seems, at least, somewhat rabbit trailin'. I don't know if it matters, in regards to the points argued, as much whether jews in Jesus' day held to the same set of scriptures that is included in our OT or not. I suppose in a round about way IF the "law" as mentioned by Jesus is referring to all the words of scripture then you'd have a point. But such may not be the case at all. As for the allusion to the law of Moses, the Psalms, and in the prophets, it truly only speaks of that which is concerning Him. And again, none of the clearly dilineates those three categories and specifying the OT as we have it. So I'm a bit stumped by your use of these to support your claims. I simply disagree...and find your conclusions wanting.

I readily admit I'd have to do some digging to find references, in particular, to scholars who have questioned what exactly was considered scripture in Jesus' time by the Jews of His day. I recall some brief allusions here and there, and haven't gone into the research itself. I believe, I have seen the idea coming from Margaret Barker and some LDS scholars. But I'd have to dig. I'll see if I can find any for you. In the meantime, have a nice day, or however long it takes me to get back to this.

love,

stem

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

False dilemma. Jesus quoted the Old Testament. In doing so, he was of course quoting his Word, which was also the Word of his Father. So the answer is, all of the above.

I have answered your question. Now, please answer mine. Do you deny that Jesus quoted the Old Testament?

Please try to see the

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

Then why do you limit yourself to " I accept the same 66 books of the Bible that all evangelical Protestants accept.". Why not accept the Catholic additions. Or the additional Gnostic Books, or the additional books from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

My reason for not accepting those books is simple: the evidence shows that they are not genuine scriptures. For example, the Gnostic books are clearly inferior writings that show no appreciable historical information about Jesus other than what is already in the canonical Gospels. I have no good reason to accept such other books as Scripture and very good reasons not to accept them as such.

Now it's your turn. Last I checked, the LDS Church had not added any of those books to their Standard Works. Why don't you have any of those books in your scriptures? Again, my Bible has one more book than yours!

You wrote:

If God's promises are still kept, then why do you limit what God has said to just the 66 books?

The question contains a non sequitur, as best I can see. I am not aware of any promises of God that require him to inspire books outside the 66 books of the Bible. And I don't see myself as limiting what God has said. That would be like asking me, "Why do you limit what Luke said to the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts?" Um, I'm not limiting Luke, but simply observing that to the best of our knowledge Luke wrote only those two books. Likewise, I'm not limiting God's speech or revelation; I simply maintain that to the best of our knowledge God has inspired the 66 books of the Bible and no others that are extant.

We all recognize that God has spoken in some books and not in others. You don't view the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ or Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as divinely inspired. Neither do I. This isn't "limiting" God; it is simply recognizing that we must all decide which books we will view as inspired scripture and which we will not.

I wrote, "In order for God to make promises to us, he must reveal them to us." You replied:

And if "God must reveal them to us"; then why would he not reveal himself to the people in the Americas?

My statement does not require God to reveal promises to anyone, because it does not require God to make promises to anyone. He makes promises to whomever he chooses, and reveals those promises to those whom he chooses.

Now it's your turn: If God is obligated to reveal himself to the people in the Americas, what about the people in China, and Australia, and the Congo? And what about the people in the Americas between 430 and 1530? And what about the people in the Americas between 600 BC and AD 430 who didn't receive the revelations of the Book of Mormon (assuming you hold to some limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon peoples)?

[ELF1024]

Why don't you have any of those books in your scriptures? Again, my Bible has one more book than yours!

I've never said that I reject the Song of Solomon. I also am willing to entertain the Books found in the collection called the "Dead Sea Scrolls" as well as the book in the Catholic Bible, and the Gnostic books. That doesn't mean that I accept them as "Truth" it just means that I will not completely dismiss them.

An example of that can be found HERE...

Now it's your turn: If God is obligated to reveal himself to the people in the Americas, what about the people in China, and Australia, and the Congo? And what about the people in the Americas between 430 and 1530? And what about the people in the Americas between 600 BC and AD 430 who didn't receive the revelations of the Book of Mormon (assuming you hold to some limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon peoples)?

I am open minded enough, that should records be discovered, I would be willing to entertain them as scripture, until such time as I ether accepted or rejected them based on the same evidences I accepted the Book of Mormon and the Bible on.

I believe that there are many records still hidden from us, and that it is highly likely, that just as the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered, more records will surface in the next hundred years.

[Vance]

I pointed out that Jesus referred to the whole OT as true in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44.

A whole lot of ASSUMING going on here.

Bowman's argument is based on ASSUMPTION!

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

Pardon me for asking this question, but there are a lot of people here and I forget sometimes what has already been said. Are you LDS? If you are, then you must reject Song of Solomon, because Joseph Smith taught that it was not Scripture. My other question to you is this: If those other books (the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic writings, the Catholic deuterocanonical books, etc.) might be scripture, why have your prophets not said so and added those that are scripture to the LDS Standard Works? We don't have to wait for them to be discovered; they are here, they have been translated into numerous languages, and your prophets have had decades to decide what to make of them (and they've had 180 years to decide what to make of the Apocrypha).

You wrote:

I believe that there are many records still hidden from us, and that it is highly likely, that just as the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered, more records will surface in the next hundred years.

Let's face facts here. It's been 170 years since any "hidden records" have surfaced that the LDS Church prophets have deemed to be scripture. Only one LDS prophet has ever claimed to have found or discerned such hidden scriptures, and he died 166 years ago. Treasure troves of documents from ancient Judaism, ancient Christianity, and ancient heretical sects and movements have been discovered in the intervening 166 years, especially in the 1940s, but the LDS Church prophets have not declared any of them to be scripture. Based on this history, it is unlikely that any future LDS prophet will identify more ancient scriptures.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

A whole lot of ASSUMING going on here.

Bowman's argument is based on ASSUMPTION!

No, my argument is based on evidence. Your argument...wait, you don't have an argument on this issue, at least not one you have shared with the rest of the class.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

Pardon me for asking this question, but there are a lot of people here and I forget sometimes what has already been said. Are you LDS? If you are, then you must reject Song of Solomon, because Joseph Smith taught that it was not Scripture. My other question to you is this: If those other books (the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic writings, the Catholic deuterocanonical books, etc.) might be scripture, why have your prophets not said so and added those that are scripture to the LDS Standard Works? We don't have to wait for them to be discovered; they are here, they have been translated into numerous languages, and your prophets have had decades to decide what to make of them (and they've had 180 years to decide what to make of the Apocrypha).

You wrote:

Let's face facts here. It's been 170 years since any "hidden records" have surfaced that the LDS Church prophets have deemed to be scripture. Only one LDS prophet has ever claimed to have found or discerned such hidden scriptures, and he died 166 years ago. Treasure troves of documents from ancient Judaism, ancient Christianity, and ancient heretical sects and movements have been discovered in the intervening 166 years, especially in the 1940s, but the LDS Church prophets have not declared any of them to be scripture. Based on this history, it is unlikely that any future LDS prophet will identify more ancient scriptures.

Technically, I am not a member of the LDS Church. And even if I was, I reserve the right to believe in whatever books I see fit. I don't need a Prophet, or a some Council from over 1500 years ago to tell me what is and what isn't scripture. If I need to know the truth of something, I can simply get on my knees and "James 1:5".

As unlikely as it may seem to you, it has been promised that more scripture will be revealed. For example, the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

My reason for not accepting those books is simple: the evidence shows that they are not genuine scriptures. For example, the Gnostic books are clearly inferior writings that show no appreciable historical information about Jesus other than what is already in the canonical Gospels. I have no good reason to accept such other books as Scripture and very good reasons not to accept them as such.

Now it's your turn. Last I checked, the LDS Church had not added any of those books to their Standard Works. Why don't you have any of those books in your scriptures? Again, my Bible has one more book than yours!

Just to annoy you Rob, sorry but Song of Solomon is included in the KJV, even the one online at LDS.ORG.

http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/song?lang=eng

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Just to annoy you Rob, sorry but Song of Solomon is included in the KJV, even the one online at LDS.ORG.

http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/song?lang=eng

Copyright issues.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

What I find annoying is that you are not telling the whole truth.

"The JST manuscript contains the note that

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

Ah. Thanks for that clarification.

Technically, I am not a member of the LDS Church. And even if I was, I reserve the right to believe in whatever books I see fit. I don't need a Prophet, or a some Council from over 1500 years ago to tell me what is and what isn't scripture. If I need to know the truth of something, I can simply get on my knees and "James 1:5".

As unlikely as it may seem to you, it has been promised that more scripture will be revealed. For example, the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

What I find annoying is that you are not telling the whole truth.

"The JST manuscript contains the note that

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

No, my argument is based on evidence. Your argument...wait, you don't have an argument on this issue, at least not one you have shared with the rest of the class.

No, your "argument" is based on ASSUMPTION.

You are ASSUMING that the current OT as we have it, is an exhaustive collection of the books that were used in NT times.

You can't support your ASSUMPTION so you want to shift the "burden of proof" away from yourself.

Evidence against your ASSUMPTION has already been provided. And what do you have?

ZIP, ZERO, NADA!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You still have no real argument (with evidence or reasons) to offer, only capitalized and boldfaced words repeated loudly to simulate confidence in their truth. A perfect example of the fallacy I call Lenin's Law.

No, your "argument" is based on ASSUMPTION.

You are ASSUMING that the current OT as we have it, is an exhaustive collection of the books that were used in NT times.

You can't support your ASSUMPTION so you want to shift the "burden of proof" away from yourself.

Evidence against your ASSUMPTION has already been provided. And what do you have?

ZIP, ZERO, NADA!

[zerinus]

Elf,

What I find annoying is that you are not telling the whole truth.

"The JST manuscript contains the note that

[Vance]

Vance,

You still have no real argument (with evidence or reasons) to offer, only capitalized and boldfaced words repeated loudly to simulate confidence in their truth. A perfect example of the fallacy I call Lenin's Law.

So you are violating your "Lenin's Law".

No surprise there.

The fact that Jude quotes Enoch, which isn't in the Bible, is proof that our current OT is not a complete collection.

Your argument based on ASSUMPTION is shattered.

Edited to add.

Where in the OT might I find this prophesy?

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

[evangelist]

Could you explain that phrase for me? I've heard it before but it doesn't parse for me.

Yours under the confused oaks,

Nathair /|\

Sorry I forgot to put (not) in the phrase!

God Word does not return void.

You can't use the bible like a history book or just another book on a shelf it is alive and above any other books!

one love

[evangelist]

I just always think it's funny when a non-LDS Christian gets huffy with another non-LDS Christian because he mistakenly assumes the other one is actually mormon and has fallen into the trap of automatically disagreeing with everything said in a thread, regardless of what is actually said. Always interesting to see the bias in full swing.

As to what you have said here-I cannot turn my back on the words of God, regardless of how others may feel about them or how narrow their view may be. You may feel that you have enough of God's word and desire no more, but many do not feel that way.

That is why I said we don't need an koran or BOM for some kind of extra revelations!

We already have a problem with understanding and knowing what the bible teaches and guide us.

It will take eternaty to get some of the deepest meaning in God word the bible we have today in the 66 books.

Alot of people can't even get the right teaching on water baptism so we need alot of home work amd study with faith and meditations!

one love

[Nathair/|\]

That is why I said we don't need an koran or BOM for some kind of extra revelations!

We already have a problem with understanding and knowing what the bible teaches and guide us.

It will take eternaty to get some of the deepest meaning in God word the bible we have today in the 66 books.

Alot of people can't even get the right teaching on water baptism so we need alot of home work amd study with faith and meditations!

one love

Congratulations, You just provided an excellent case for the necessity of the Book of Mormon. It answers many of those questions, including water baptism.

2 Nephi 31:13Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

You wrote:

Congratulations, You just provided an excellent case for the necessity of the Book of Mormon. It answers many of those questions, including water baptism.

You just pointed out one of the problems with the Book of Mormon. It was patently written to answer modern theological questions.

[evangelist]

Congratulations, You just provided an excellent case for the necessity of the Book of Mormon. It answers many of those questions, including water baptism.

For more, see my link.

Yours under the enlightened oaks,

Nathair /|\

I would use also the koran but they didn't add water baptism yet as anothwer work to get to heaven or another planet, or a paradise.

But can we stick to the bible?

one love

[Nathair/|\]

Nathan,

Nathair is Gaelic for serpent. It is a reference to 2 Nephi 25:20 among other things.

You just pointed out one of the problems with the Book of Mormon. It was patently written to answer modern theological questions.

I'm sure that was one of the things Mormon had in mind. If God gave you a vision of the future and commanded you to prepare a book for them, wouldn't you include stuff like that?

I realize I am probably not worthy of your notice,

Yours under the insignificant oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Nathair/|\]

I would use also the koran but they didn't add water baptism yet as anothwer work to get to heaven or another planet, or a paradise.

But can we stick to the bible?

one love

Well, if you really want to limit yourself to a portion of the Savior's words...but you're the one who brought up the BOM.

Yours under the oaks accepting all of God's gifts,

Nathair /|\