The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

[Hughes]

I have been saying that! I thought that was very clear. It is supported by the "Bible." I would be more specific and say that it's supported by Jesus, His Apostles, including: Peter, Paul, John, and Matthew. The reason why I include Matthew and John is because they are quoting Christ on the subject of baptism, and obviously agree with the doctrine.

So if you would disagree with them (the early Christians) that baptism is necessary, then would you call them heretics or just misguided? Maybe living closer to or during the time of the beginning of the Christian movement didn't help them understand the doctrine more clearly or any better? I know you don't believe that baptism is for the remission of sin or necessary, and that you "believe" it to be unscriptural, but I think that early Christians would disagree with you. And not only them, but many today would disagree, and I don't just mean Mormons. Catholics, Church of Christ, Greek Orthodox, and others would disagree that baptism is not for the remission of sins and entrance into the kingdom of God, and that it is just merely symbolic. Are they heretics or misguided? I have read the New Testament a couple of times all the way through, and then I have studied many of the books and passages individually for years. I have not come across one scripture that says baptism in not necessary and not for the remission of sins. No one can point out a scripture that says that. They simply take other scriptures, that don't mention baptism, and interpret them in such a way as to exclude baptism as part of the necessary Christian experience.

People seem to forget that the letters that Paul wrote were to Churches in Rome, Corinth, Phillipia, etc. Being establsihed churches, they were full of Christians who had already been baptized for membership in the Church. In acts we learn that 3000 souls were added to the Church by baptism (Acts 2:41). Hence, being thus already baptized, Paul had no reason to dwell upon the necessity of baptism, although he does teach its necessity.

Paul in Hebrews 6:1-2 says "Therefore ^aleaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto ^bperfection; not laying again the foundation of ^crepentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the ^adoctrine of ^bbaptisms, and of ^claying on of ^dhands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Verse one could also be rendered, "Therefore having left behind the beginning of the doctrine of Christ..." The word "principle" also means beginning or first. Thus Paul teaches that baptism is one fo the beginning doctrines of Christ. He then goes on to say that he does not want to lay that foundation again, but wants to move beyond these doctrines, and go on to perfection. Thus Paul thought repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and eternal judgement were basic foundational doctrines for Christians to understand and live. Basic/Foundational doctrines are by their nature necessary.

The primitive Christians would have accepted and agreed that these doctrines were essential to the Christian faith, and were the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Any other such teaching would have been foreign to them, and would have been considered another gospel, which Paul said to reject, and that if any taught another gospel then let them be accursed.

You are correct. I don't think a symbolic act, such as baptism actually reemits sin or saves us. Nor have I ever read or heard of a biblical scripture that indicates that a symbolic act does this.

Does this mean that I think people are heretics for believing it? No. It's simply one error of many in the LDS faith. It happens to be one that we're talking about.

Does that mean I don't think people should be baptized? Nope, haven't said that either.

As for your interpretation of Hebrews 6. The "doctrine of baptisms" is plural. Not singular, as in "baptism". It could also be translated as "cleansing rites". But either way, there's no way one could come away from this passage or any other passage and say that the symbolic act is what saves or remits our sins. In fact Paul makes the point in chapter 8:1 "Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle:

[Hughes]

If it helps, I left out verses 55-6 to save space since they aren't really relevant to the discussion.Only verses 57-60 are YHWH speaking except where it is explicitly marked in the other verses.

Sure, when you learn the pure Adamic tongue. That's Enoch telling the story, quoting Adam and YHWH.

Finally, you have said something true. The Book of Moses is exactly as much the word of God as the Book of Mormon and precisely as much as the Bible was when it came from the pens of the original prophetic authors.

Yours under the obedient oaks,

Nathair /|\

Well, thanks for stating your beliefs. It's clear to me that neither are from God.

[volgadon]

And you don't think we can read the original hebrew and greek and Aramaic?

Some of us can. ?? ????

[volgadon]

BTW where is the original Hebrew of 2nd Enoch?

Have you heard of Saul Lieberman's book Sheqiin?

[volgadon]

It's clear to me that neither are from God.

Nor is your opinion.

[Hughes]

Some of us can. ?? ????

Cool. Too bad we can't do the same with any of the LDS literature.

BTW where is the original Hebrew of 2nd Enoch?

Have you heard of Saul Lieberman's book Sheqiin?

Don't know.

and no.

Nor is your opinion.

Luckily I didn't claim it was.

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Temple Archive on the Early Church Authorities/Leaders on Baptism as Essential to Full Salvation :

#1- http://www.bringyou....getics/num2.htm

#2- http://www.bebaptize...niableFacts.htm

#3- http://www.bible.ca/H-baptism.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Repost

[volgadon]

Cool. Too bad we can't do the same with any of the LDS literature.

See below.

Don't know.

The Hebrew original has been lost, yet I don't think you can find a scholar today that works on the premise that there wasn't

a Hebrew original of Slavonic Enoch. I suggest you check if your local university's library has a copy of Charlseworth's Pseudopigraphia. You'll probably be surprised at the amount of texts in there whose originals have been long lost.

and no.

Would have been extremely surprised had you known of it. In this book Liberman presented rabbinic and midrashic material found in Christian and Karaite works. Many of these aren't extant as such in Hebrew anymore.

[WalkerW]

See below.

The Hebrew original has been lost, yet I don't think you can find a scholar today that works on the premise that there wasn't

a Hebrew original of Slavonic Enoch. I suggest you check if your local university's library has a copy of Charlseworth's Pseudopigraphia. You'll probably be surprised at the amount of texts in there whose originals have been long lost.

Would have been extremely surprised had you known of it. In this book Liberman presented rabbinic and midrashic material found in Christian and Karaite works. Many of these aren't extant as such in Hebrew anymore.

You're so rad.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, thanks for stating your beliefs. It's clear to me that neither are from God.

You may wish to start wearing a helmet when you skate.

I think you meant to say that the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are from God.

[LDSGuy]

You are correct. I don't think a symbolic act, such as baptism actually reemits sin or saves us. Nor have I ever read or heard of a biblical scripture that indicates that a symbolic act does this.

Does this mean that I think people are heretics for believing it? No. It's simply one error of many in the LDS faith. It happens to be one that we're talking about.

Does that mean I don't think people should be baptized? Nope, haven't said that either.

As for your interpretation of Hebrews 6. The "doctrine of baptisms" is plural. Not singular, as in "baptism". It could also be translated as "cleansing rites". But either way, there's no way one could come away from this passage or any other passage and say that the symbolic act is what saves or remits our sins. In fact Paul makes the point in chapter 8:1 "Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: