Medieval Inklings of the Need for Redemption of the Dead

[notHagoth7]

About 13 centuries ago, an event played out in northern Europe that might interest some here. 

A Frisian leader was investigating the version of Christianity taught by the neighboring Frankish kingdom. At that time, the Frisian leader was engaged in defending his people against attempted conquest by the Franks.

It is said that he was nearly baptized, but refused at the last moment after asking what would come of his forefathers. The priests among the Franks answered that he would not be able to find any of his ancestors in Heaven after his death. Some claim that the Frisian leader preferred spending eternity in Hell with his ancestors than in Heaven with his enemies (the Franks).  Others might conclude, based on the context, that he felt any faith that was powerless to rescue those who died in innocent ignorance was not an effective or just faith at all.  Also, his response aligns well with the ancient Germanic ethos of never abandoning one's leaders in battle - and with the modern U.S. military creed: leave no man behind.

1 Corinthians 15:29

A broader question might be, beyond the hype of what Frankish chroniclers claimed, what did northern peoples beyond the scope of the Franks' version of Christianity actually believe?

Thoughts?

Edited September 5, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Eek!]

Unfortunately for most of Christendom, the preponderance of the evidence they had (and have) access to indicates that God will eternally damn anyone who has not been baptized.  This puts them in the unenviable position of the Frisian king - either molding their own concepts or right and wrong into alignment with this evidently unfair God, or living with cognitive dissonance (perhaps smoothed over with statements like "it's a mystery" or "God's ways are not man's ways"), or making the Frisian choice and rejecting a lot of really good teachings because of the bad ones that are mixed in.  

I'd like to think that there may have been a few "cafeteria Christians" here and there who picked and chose according to their own conscience, who quietly rejected the mainsteam teachings on this subject.  .  

[notHagoth7]

 

54 minutes ago, Eek! said:

...I'd like to think that there may have been a few "cafeteria Christians" here and there who picked and chose according to their own conscience, who quietly rejected the mainsteam teachings on this subject.  .  

Actually, the Frisian leader mentioned in the OP may have been a baptized Christian prior to the event in question. 

 

For example, centuries before the event in question *many* Goths, Vandals and Burgundians were known to be Christians, as were later Lombards...but all of an Arian variety. Despite believing in the New Testament accounts and practicing baptism, they were nonetheless occasionally referred to as heathens by other Christians simply because they differed from the state-backed version of Christianity. So when medieval people were called heathen or pagan, such hyperbole doesn't always mean that someone didn't believe the Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and the Son of God.  (Just consider what Luther and Zwingli called other Christians...and one another.)

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by notHagoth7

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

About 13 centuries ago, an event played out in northern Europe that might interest some here. 

A Frisian leader was investigating the version of Christianity taught by the neighboring Frankish kingdom. At that time, the Frisian leader was engaged in defending his people against attempted conquest by the Franks.

It is said that he was nearly baptized, but refused at the last moment after asking what would come of his forefathers. The priests among the Franks answered that he would not be able to find any of his ancestors in Heaven after his death. Some claim that the Frisian leader preferred spending eternity in Hell with his ancestors than in Heaven with his enemies (the Franks).  Others might conclude, based on the context, that he felt any faith that was powerless to rescue those who died in innocent ignorance was not an effective or just faith at all.  Also, his response aligns well with the ancient Germanic ethos of never abandoning one's leaders in battle - and with the modern U.S. military creed: leave no man behind.

1 Corinthians 15:29

A broader question might be, beyond the hype of what Frankish chroniclers claimed, what did northern peoples beyond the scope of the Franks' version of Christianity actually believe?

Thoughts?

I know you like to discuss "Northern" peoples because of certain historic theories you have, to which I might be sympathetic, by the way.  There is no need to raise those theories here unless you decide to do so.

BUT I suggest that many many of the worlds cultures are based on recognition of ancestors and their deification

Take the Chinese for example:

Quote

Chinese ancestor worship, or Chinese ancestor veneration, also called the Chinese patriarchal religion,[2] is an aspect of the Chinese traditional religion which revolves around the ritual celebration of the deified ancestors and tutelary deities of people with the same surname organised into lineage societies in ancestral shrines. Ancestors, their ghosts, or spirits, and gods are considered part of "this world," that is, they are neither supernatural (in the sense of being outside nature) nor transcendent in the sense of being beyond nature. The ancestors are humans who have become godly beings, beings who keep their individual identities. For this reason, Chinese religion is founded on veneration of ancestors.[3] Ancestors are believed to be a means of connection to the supreme power of Tian (Shangdi), as they are considered embodiments or reproducers of the creative order of Heaven.[4]

At first one might take this for a strange and quaint belief until one compares this to LDS beliefs.

First we believe that Heavenly Father who had a Father of his own, is our Father.

Brigham Young in his "Adam God theory" believed that Heavenly Father, in the person of Adam, was the literal father of our bodies as well, making him an "Ancestor" who we have "deified"

We also believe that Abraham Issac and Jacob have gone on to their exaltation.  We know that Jacob is also "Israel" and the father of the ten tribes. We also believe that we are descendants of the ten tribes, therefore we believe that we are descendants - literally- of "gods".

In the early days of the church, men were sealed to other men, and especially to Joseph Smith, in order to be in his "lineage society" to use the term above, so that they could become gods as they believed he would become.  And they were "

Quote

neither supernatural (in the sense of being outside nature) nor transcendent in the sense of being beyond nature. The ancestors are humans who have become godly beings, beings who keep their individual identities."

Paul speaks of us as members of the church as being parts of the "Body of Christ" and to regard each person as "Christ"  and in a sense therefore 

Quote

embodiments or reproducers of the creative order of Heaven.[4] 

as well as embodiments of the Creator himself!  

From these similarities we might conclude that the Chinese represent a "true dispensation of the gospel" which has become "apostate"  OR a skeptic might insist that this is simply an example of all religions taking on the same concerns seeking and creating spiritual answers for yearnings felt by all humanity.

I can kind of see it both ways I guess.   Which is "right" becomes blurry and irrelevant when one considers these two options as interpreting the same phenomenon from two different perspectives.

One view works for certain purposes and the other works for other purposes, but neither and both represent anything closer to "the truth" which is unknowable aside from which works better to get one closer to God.

Edited September 6, 2016 by mfbukowski

[halconero]

I mean...not just inklings but Marcionites (still Classical period, I know) outright performed proxy baptisms for believers who had passed on prior to receiving the ordinance. Monophysites (Mostly Copts in Egypt) did it periodically as well, which partially prompted the Synod of Carthage in the Cathodox Church (pet name for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches before the Great Schism) to ban both proxy administration of the Eucharist and Baptism.

Mandaeans, which are arguably more of a Sethian religious group than a Christian one, still practice proxy baptisms.

[notHagoth7]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...it both ways I guess.   Which is "right" becomes blurry and irrelevant when one considers these two options as interpreting the same phenomenon from two different perspectives.

One view works for certain purposes and the other works for other purposes, but neither and both represent anything closer to "the truth" which is unknowable aside from which works better to get one closer to God.

Interesting input.

 

I don't see things as being blurry...especially in the context of hearts turned...promises made to the fathers...etc. 

 

If you feel otherwise, I'm AOK w/that.

[Eek!]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Paul speaks of us as members of the church as being parts of the "Body of Christ" and to regard each person as "Christ"...

I'm not familiar with a scripture where Paul tells us to "regard each person as 'Christ'...", but I'd like to be.  Do you have the reference?

Thanks.

[notHagoth7]

On 9/7/2016 at 1:19 PM, Eek! said:

I'm not familiar with a scripture where Paul tells us to "regard each person as 'Christ'...", but I'd like to be.  Do you have the reference?

Thanks.

Perhaps an extrapolation/interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12.

And/or perhaps derives from something like this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/philip/2.5-7?lang=eng#4

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Perhaps an extrapolation/interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12.

And/or perhaps derives from something like this: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/philip/2.5-7?lang=eng#4

Thank you very much!  I can see how the idea mfbukowski expressed is implied in these verses.  I think it is also implied  in Matthew 25:40 ("inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me") and to a lesser extent, in King Benjamin's discourse ("when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God.")  

So I have question.  If you are not Hagoth7, who is?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Eek!

[notHagoth7]

On 9/6/2016 at 2:59 PM, halconero said:

I mean...not just inklings but Marcionites (still Classical period, I know) outright performed proxy baptisms for believers who had passed on prior to receiving the ordinance. Monophysites (Mostly Copts in Egypt) did it periodically as well, which partially prompted the Synod of Carthage in the Cathodox Church (pet name for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches before the Great Schism) to ban both proxy administration of the Eucharist and Baptism.

Mandaeans, which are arguably more of a Sethian religious group than a Christian one, still practice proxy baptisms.

And such things may well have been believed (or even practiced) in pockets of Christianity in the north. 

For example, an early Anglo-Saxon (English) account said that Caedmon (who was contemporary with the Frisian leader mentioned in the OP) taught something in England that goes hand in hand with baptism for the dead. 

(And to further that point, there was at that same time considerable competition between Anglo-Saxon (English) and Frankish evangelization efforts as to which nation's missionaries missionaries would be granted access/influence in which northern regions....which oddly had repercussions as to which kingdom would have greater influence over that region.) So the Frisan leader mentioned in the OP, may very well have opted out of the Frankish interpretation in favor of something better (if he didn't already have something better).

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

Thank you very much!

You're quite welcome. :0)

I can see how the idea mfbukowski expressed is implied in these verses.  I think it is also implied  in Matthew 25:40 ("inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me") and to a lesser extent, in King Benjamin's discourse ("when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God.")  

Agreed on all counts.

So I have question.  If you are not Hagoth7, who is?

I am also Hagoth7. Several years back, when I *was* originally posting as Hagoth7, someone launched a thread that asked what sockpuppet name everyone else might use to hide/post under. Tongue in cheek, I said, "notHagoth7". 

For some time, I posted as notHagoth7, using the same avatar pic and the same website links, as somewhat of an inside joke. (I'm apparently easily amused...).

I haven't posted under Hagoth7 in quite some time. 

Not pretending either is the "alter ego", since posting style/content under both logins was the same, including same avatar pic and same website links. (Curiously enough, the idea of "alter ego" was suggested by Cicero...but as something that was a good thing..."a second self, a trusted friend"...which makes one wonder what he really meant...and whence his source was for that idea...Tiro, oh Tiro?)  :0)