The True Gospel

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When I say "Let the Bible interpret itself" I mean Just believe what it says, Don't try to put your own interpretations to it.

That is not what you mean. You mean that we should believe your interpration over ours. You don't even want your interpration challanged. I am sorry but that is not how it works.

We believe the bible just fine. What we are having an issue with is your interpretaion of the bible. Got it?

[T-Shirt]

[5]I can prove from the Bible that water baptism doesn't save, I have already said that the Greek proves it doesn't save.

Actually, LDS doctrine agrees with you. Baptism does not save us. Baptism is, however, a necessary ingredient in the salvation process. This is abundantly clear in the New Testament.

All the best,

T-Shirt

[LeSellers]

[1] Please note, Peter said baptism was only a figure, NOT THE REAL THING THAT SAVES. If baptism saves then God, Jesus and Paul all got it wrong.

Or, it might be you who have it all wrong.

However, Peter does not say that baptism is a figure, he says the noachin flood was a figure of baptism, and that "baptism doth now also save us" in the same way the ark saved Noah and his family.

This "baptism is not a requirement for salvation" claptrap is an invention of Zwingli from the XV~XIV. It's a relatively new invention, concocted by some of the Reformers who, knowing they had no priesthood, determined that priesthood was unnecessary, and that anything to do with the Priesthood was extraneous.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

PLEASE NOTE, water didn't save Noah, It was the arc that saved them, The water would have klilled them just like it did the others.

PLEASE NOTE, Water is only a "Figure" Not the thing that saves. I can prove from the Bible that water baptism doesn't save.

I am sorry, what does the text mean when it says "eight souls were saved by water."

Is this the part were we let the bible interpret it's self again?

ACtually you can't prove by the bible that water baptism doesn't save because those words do not exsist in the bible. Nor does anything even respembing it appear in teh bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Or, it might be you who have it all wrong.

However, Peter does not say that baptism is a figure, he says the noachin flood was a figure of baptism, and that "baptism doth now also save us" in the same way the ark saved Noah and his family.

This "baptism is not a requirement for salvation" claptrap is an invention of Zwingli from the XV~XIV. It's a relatively new invention, concocted by some of the Reformers who, knowing they had no priesthood, determined that priesthood was unnecessary, and that anytihng to do with the priesthood was extraneous.

Lehi

Pooned.

Good job Lehi. This is a great and more indepth statement on the mater that just backs up what I have been saying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tell me some of J Smith's Biblical interpretations and I will tell you they are true or not.

Why would we do that? You can't even handle the stuff that is right there in the bible. For instance claiming that "water did not save them (Noah)" when the text in 1st Peter tells us they were 8 souls saved by water.

[Kingsson]

You shall have it.

The baptism of the souls of the dead or of their resurrected bodies was a frequent theme in the recounting of Christ's descent into the spirit prison. In the Shepherd of Hermas (mid-second-century scripture) The angel of Hermas tells the pre-Christian dead - "who had fallen asleep" - were also baptized (the "seal");

The Third Book of Hermas, Sim. 9:152-160 : "So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'"

"Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

1 Peter 3:18-19 : "[Christ] went [in His spirit] and preached to the [disobedient] spirits in prison."

To what end?

1 Peter 3:21 : "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

He says that it is baptism that saves us. He explains that baptism is more than just bathing (“putting away the filth of the flesh”) but it cleanses us so we can answer a good conscious toward God. If the disobedient spirits were preached to are to be saved, they must also be baptized. But that seems to require the impossible. Unless there is some how a way that the dead can receive baptism.

So Paul refers to those baptizing for the dead:

1 Corinthians 15:29 : "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

This is part of Paul's argument against those who denied a future resurrection. Because the resurrection of Christ was a reality thus the Apostles did not preach it in vain, the literal resurrection of the dead is also a reality, thus dead do rise. Thus the baptisms for the dead likewise are not done in vain. Many modern biblical scholars interpret this the same way have been puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice, making the churches today Biblically inconsistent.

What do Christ’s words mean: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. It’s not the gates attacking the church, its the church attacking the gates, and the "gates" will not prevail. How is the Church of Jesus Christ expected to attack the gates of death? The spirits in the prison can be preached to and people can be baptized on behalf of the dead, and if your church does not do these things, then how can you claim, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? You condemn the dead as lost, because your church cannot prevail against death.

There is considerable evidence that some early Christians and some Jewish groups performed proxy ordinance work for the salvation of the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had concealed pagan idols beneath their clothing. Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and commander, collected money to purchase sacrificial animals, and taking account of the resurrection, makes Atonement on behalf of his dead comrades.

2 Maccabees 12:43–46 : "And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin."

Historical records show the baptism of a living person by proxy for the dead was performed by the dominant church until they were forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Baptism for the dead was practiced and only banned about four hundred years after Christ by church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy and a need for a restoration - church councils altered doctrines and practices that was accepted at an earlier date.

Thus for Catholics, proxy baptism was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead, such as the Jewish did, as illustrated by Judas Maccabaeus. Except they of course don't do the sacrifices, they are Christians. But what sacrifices did in ancient Judaism is what baptism does in Christianity. What good are your prayers if baptism is needed to remit our sins?

[1] You are showing your ignorance of the Bible and you are showing the error of the BOM.

Jesus didn't preach to the spirits in prisen, 1 Pet 3: 19, The Greek meaning is, " Proclaim the victory", He prclaimed the victory over the devil and his demons.

Peter never said water bapism saves, He said it was a figure [NOT THE THING THAT SAVES].

As for 1 Cor 15: 29. Paul wasn't making a doctrine of baptism for the dead. Has was stating the fact that ther is a resurrection from the dead. There was a group of people who were baptising for the dead and Paul was just saying,

"IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION, WHY DO YOU BAPTISE FOR THE DEAD??", As I said He wasn't making a doctrine out of it. Besides, You need two or three scriptures to build a doctrine.

[Kingsson]

Then what do you make of 1 Peter? It says Jesus went to the spirits in prison, so that "they might live according to God in the spirit." You say that we should let the Bible interpret itself, which I take to mean that we should take what it says at face value. In that case, you're going to have to accept that Paul accepted baptism for the dead as a Christian practice: http://maxwellinstit...=8&num=2&id=223 You'll also have to accept that Peter preached a redemption for the dead, despite those living at the time of Noah not living a Christian life.

You are mixing two scipture up, As for 1 Pet 3: 19, The Greek meanig is, Jesus proclaimed the victory, HE DIDN'T PREACH.

As for 1 Pet 4: 6, This is still the same discourse as ch3, Jesus preached to the OT Righteous saints who were in paradice,[Abrahams bosom] See Lk 16: 19--26. The depated righteous went into Abraham bosom or paradice until the way to heaven was opened.

These people believed the promise of the coming saviour, So Jesus preached the gospel to them,

Other then this, The Bible doesn't say we should preach to the dead or baptised for the dead.

You need at least two scriptures to build a doctrine.

[Nathair/|\]

[1] You are showing your ignorance of the Bible and you are showing the error of the BOM.

Jesus didn't preach to the spirits in prisen, 1 Pet 3: 19, The Greek meaning is, " Proclaim the victory", He prclaimed the victory over the devil and his demons.

Peter never said water bapism saves, He said it was a figure [NOT THE THING THAT SAVES].

As for 1 Cor 15: 29. Paul wasn't making a doctrine of baptism for the dead. Has was stating the fact that ther is a resurrection from the dead. There was a group of people who were baptising for the dead and Paul was just saying,

"IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION, WHY DO YOU BAPTISE FOR THE DEAD??", As I said He wasn't making a doctrine out of it. Besides, You need two or three scriptures to build a doctrine.

You have been reported for failing to answer multiple CFR's in this thread and for failing to engage in discourse in violation of board rules.

[Kingsson]

Hold on there a second.

A while back you claimed the Bible interpreted itself. Now you're saying the Holy Ghost does it.

Pick a position and stick with it, or we'll never get through this.

Lehi

When I said Let the Bible interpret itself, I meant, Just believe it and except what it says, The Holy Ghost does reveal Biblical truth to those who are open to Him, and want to know the truth.

[LeSellers]

As for 1 Cor 15: 29. Paul wasn't making a doctrine of baptism for the dead. Has was stating the fact that ther is a resurrection from the dead. There was a group of people who were baptising for the dead and Paul was just saying,

"IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION, WHY DO YOU BAPTISE FOR THE DEAD??", As I said He wasn't making a doctrine out of it.

No one here is saying the Paul "made a doctrine" of Baptism for the Dead. He only referred, approvingly, to it as a buttress for his argument that the resurrection is a reality. Had it been a bad, or useless practice, surely he would have said, "but it's just superstition, so stop it." He did not. When it was a bad or useless practice to, say avoid meat sacrficed to idols, he had no compunction about telling the Saints what to do about it, did he?

Paul was a much better logician than you seem to credit his being.

We don't base our doctrine of Baptism for the Dead on 1 Cor 15:29. That's not the way we get our beliefs. We get them from God, through His prophets. The scriptures only help us clarify our doctrines and understand how to implement them.

We don't have a college of theologians who pour through the scriptures to decide what we have to believe. We get the beliefs first, then peruse the scriptures to gain more depth in our thoughts on the matter.

Baptism for the dead was a direct revelation from God to Joseph Smith. Like sealings, it took a while to get it down correctly. But I'd have to guess that 1 Cor 15:29 didn't even com eup for weeks.

You need two or three scriptures to build a doctrine.

You keep saying that, but you haven't showed anyone where the Bible supposedly says it.

Are you ever going to respond to the calls for reference (CFRs) issued here? It's part of the forum rules.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

When I said Let the Bible interpret itself, I meant, Just believe it and except what it says, The Holy Ghost does reveal Biblical truth to those who are open to Him, and want to know the truth.

So what about my Bible that has sat on the shelf for years? It still hasn't interpreted itself.

Can you show me a Bible that interprets itself? I've been looking for one of these "good copies" for many years now, ever since one of you all told me about this phenomenon.

Lehi

[Kingsson]

You might find 2 Peter 1 of interest.

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Only a prophet can interpret the Bible. And a living prophet has done so.

I take it you are joking?? What that is saying is, The Word of God,[ The Bible] as inspired by Holy Men of God, We have the Bible today and it is for everyone to believe abd getv revelations from it.

To say "Only a prophet can interpret the Bible"", Is unscriptural.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So what about my Bible that has sat on the shelf for years? It still hasn't interpreted itself.

Can you show me a Bible that interprets itself? I've been looking for one of these "good copies" for many years now, ever since one of you all told me about this phenomenon.

Lehi

Ha, good one.

[Kingsson]

I believe what the Bible says. I also believe my reading comprehension is better than yours. I guess English majors have a better chance at salvation, because they are better at reading the Bible? I'm saved... via my degree in English! Wahoo!

OK, Tell me what you believe from the Bible, And I will tell you if you are right.

[Kingsson]

It does? I dare you and challange you do demonstrate this.

Ha, we have your interpretation of the bible on your side. So far you are loosing and loosing bad. ALl we have from you is bald assertions.

[1] I'd love to challenge you, Tell me one of your doctrines, And I will tell you if you are right.

[2]I am not losing, I am proving you wrong by the Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I take it you are joking?? What that is saying is, The Word of God,[ The Bible] as inspired by Holy Men of God, We have the Bible today and it is for everyone to believe abd getv revelations from it.

To say "Only a prophet can interpret the Bible"", Is unscriptural.

What does "not for private interpretation" mean?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[1] I'd love to challenge you, Tell me one of your doctrines, And I will tell you if you are right.

[2]I am not losing, I am proving you wrong by the Bible.

You pick one. Since you think there is so much in the BoM that contradicts the bible.

You have not proved one single thing on this thread let alone through the bible. But hey, you just keep telling your self that if it makes your feel good.

[Kingsson]

Ugh. Let's quote the scripture for you again.

What is the "like figure" that Peter is referning to? I will give you a hint, it has to do with Noah and the flood. He is not talking about our phsysical baptism being the "like figure" here. Peter is using symbolism to teach that in essance the earth was baptised and there is indeed a "like figure" unto our own baptism.

Sorry but the text of the new testament is clear. Jesus was talking about a rebirth both of Body and Spirit. That rebirth happens at phsyical baptism and baptism by fire. You have utterly failed to make your case.

What was different about John's baptism? Can you even answer that? Why did the saints need to be baptised by Peter after they had been baptised by John?

Sorry that is not what the text says. You are leaving out the baptism part. And remssion of sin deals directly of Baptism. The text does not say "Repent for the remission of sins". as you imply. It says repent and be baptised for the remission of sins.

I have no dog in this fight bout Mark 16-16. You are wasting your time with me on that verse.

Wait, I thought that bible interpreted it's self. Now you are saying that you (this implies that we interpret it) need to know when God is talkin and when it is a biblical Character, as if God is not a biblical Charater, is talking.

And what is this part about part of the bible being translated wrong? I though the bible was the complete inerrant word of God.

You are correct that thos literal words do not appear in thos verses, but in 1Pet it is clear that baptism doth now save.

You are talking it out of context you are also leaving out parts of the bible to suite your own dogma. And you ahve harldy proved anything with the bible let alone your own interpretation of scripture.

You are just putting your own interpretations to the Bible, I HAVE SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

By the way, You interpretaions are way of the truth.

You have misquoted and mis-interpretes scriptures.

I have shown you what the Bibl and the GReek say, I can't make you believe it.

[Kingsson]

Or, it might be you who have it all wrong.

However, Peter does not say that baptism is a figure, he says the noachin flood was a figure of baptism, and that "baptism doth now also save us" in the same way the ark saved Noah and his family.

This "baptism is not a requirement for salvation" claptrap is an invention of Zwingli from the XV~XIV. It's a relatively new invention, concocted by some of the Reformers who, knowing they had no priesthood, determined that priesthood was unnecessary, and that anything to do with the Priesthood was extraneous.

Lehi

You have mis-quoted and mis-interpreted scripture. Look at 1 Pet 3: 21, The like figure is baptism, Not the ark. I can prove from the Bible that baptism doesn't save.

[Kingsson]

You pick one. Since you think there is so much in the BoM that contradicts the bible.

You have not proved one single thing on this thread let alone through the bible. But hey, you just keep telling your self that if it makes your feel good.

I have shown you what the Bible says, If that isn't proof, WHAT IT??

[Kingsson]

That is not what you mean. You mean that we should believe your interpration over ours. You don't even want your interpration challanged. I am sorry but that is not how it works.

We believe the bible just fine. What we are having an issue with is your interpretaion of the bible. Got it?

[1]I didn't say I want you to believe my interpretations, I want you to believe what the Bible says.

[2]It isn't my interpretaion, Give me any of your doctrines, And I will show you from the Bible, Hebrew and Greek if they are right or wrong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are just putting your own interpretations to the Bible, I HAVE SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

By the way, You interpretaions are way of the truth.

You have misquoted and mis-interpretes scriptures.

I have shown you what the Bibl and the GReek say, I can't make you believe it.

You are the one, brother, that insist that plain english does not mean what it says. You are the one that constantly is saying things like "They were not saved buy water" When Peter tells us that "8 souls were saved by water." Should I believe you or Peter?

And you have utterly failed to show any of the things you claim You have not shown the Greek and you have not shown the bible.

You have not even quoted orgianal Greek and certainly have not backed it up with any crediable sources.

[mfbukowski]

You have multiple CFR's to answer in this thread as well as others.

It's been demonstrated in every case that the Prophet's exegesis is far less tendentious than your eisegesis,

It is impossible to read anything without interpreting. It's foolish to attempt to read an ancient text without either revelation or an understanding of the setting it was written in.

Why should we take your asserted interpretations over those of a known Prophet of God? What are your credentials? If you claim to be a Prophet, how were you called? Did you attend the Divine Council to receive your commission?

All he is doing is preaching, not discussing; all he does is re-assert his position over and over and over.

He will be gone as soon as a mod notices this fact.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have mis-quoted and mis-interpreted scripture. Look at 1 Pet 3: 21, The like figure is baptism, Not the ark. I can prove from the Bible that baptism doesn't save.

I am sorry but that is not what the text says. You can't even back up your assertion here. We have backed up our interpration very well. The text does not say "That the like figure, which refers to water baptism". Those words appear no were in the bible.

If you can prove from the bible that Baptism doesn't save then please do it and stop wasting everyone's time.