LDS Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Wh

Peter1000 · Aug 15, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except plural marriage is a fundamental issue in Mormonism. You can deny as much (since you have to) but since marriage relates to salvation within Mormonism, for you to deny the connection is implausible. Likewise it is absurd to suggest that the blacks being forbidden from the priesthood is a non essential issue. Why were blacks forbidden? Because they were the Children of Cain and therefore subject to the curse of Cain, at least according to Brigham Young. Yet in the name of Political correctness your Church has abandoned that idea despite it coming from a Prophet whom you feel free to dismiss because a later Prophet said something different and now it's okay for blacks to be part of the priesthood. Yet you want to judge the fathers for trying to apply rules or doing things differently from the Apostles? You have no leg to stand on when not even your own Church acts in an Apostolic fashion and can change things whenever it wants to suite it's own fashion.

Marriage is fundamental, but not plural marriage. If it was fundamental we would still be practicing plural marriage today.

If you know the reason blacks were forbidden the priesthood, why ask me? And you certainly know now why we admit blacks to the priesthood. So why ask me?

I have applied only one doctrine to them, only 1, and that was baptism. You cannot mess with baptism. Unless you can say, in the name of Jesus Christ, I have been given a revelation from Jesus Christ that we can sprinkle water on those infirm and without much water. Does the Didache read like that? Or does it just say, you can......?

They had no choice in receiving revelation peter, that was up to God. You continue to blame them and consider them Godless when I see no hint of that in the Didache. The problem with isolating one verse or sentence in a text in order to condemn the entire thing or the person in question is that it's an unfair interpretation devoid of any grace. I would criticize Joseph Smith and accuse him of being many evil things, but I would not do this to all Mormons.

By what authority did they change the proper way to baptize?

Did the author of the Didache prefer his own wisdom to that of God's? Have you read the Didache in depth to conclude that? That would be a reading of the text which is incongruous with what it sets out to do, namely provide an orderly Christian practice for Churches where the New Testament doesn't provide any information. This is in the Orthodox view of things the tradition of the Church, handed down from one generation to the next orally because contrary to Mormon claims the Apostles didn't just up and leave the Church without anything to hold on to. They laid the foundation which the Church built upon.

He must have, for he took it upon himself to change the ordinance of baptism, where he had no authority to do so.

Why is this authors book not in the bible if this was God's real way. It is not, so I would suspect it was someones own wisdom, and the compilers of the bible took it that way too.

I guess the compilers of the bible in fact did not like the idea that the author took the right to add to the bible did not provide. But I guess that is OK to you?

Provide evidence of it being directly known. You can quote Paul and interpret him to mean proxy by Baptism but this is only proof of a Mormon interpretation. The lack of this practice anywhere within the historic Church indicates it didn't exist. We can contrast this to other practices of the Church which we do have evidence for, such as reading the Gospels on Sunday, Fasting before Baptism, sermons and Homilies being given on recited scriptures. These were

1 Corinthians 15:29 King James Version (KJV)
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?

Paul is asking these people why are they baptized for the dead.
So it is obvious that people were being baptized for the dead, and did not know why they were.
Paul says if the dead do not rise, why are you doing this?
Paul implies that if the dead do rise, which they do, it is OK to be baptized for the dead.

If you are going to accuse the latter Church of conspiracy to get rid of proxy baptism then demonstrate they knew about it to conspire against it. A difficult task I do not envy you in.

I just did, see 1 Corinthians 15:29 above. It is the only scripture in the bible that refers to baptism for the dead. But it demonstrates that some were obviously doing this practice.

You expect them to act like 21st century Mormons and that's where the fault in your understanding lies. Because they lack so many Mormon distinctive you automatically conclude corruption whereas the more obvious answer is that Mormon Practices and beliefs did not exist. For instance the Mormon Church of Jospeh Smith doesn't look like the Apostle's Church. Peter for instance didn't engage (to our knowledge) in polyamory or Polygamy. Paul encouraged people to be celibate. The Apostles did not gather in LDS style temples for worship. There were consecrated virgins in the Apostolic Church which the LDS never accepted.

I will challenge any church to step up to the plate and compare their church with the first century church in organization and doctrine, and see how close they resemble the original church in the first century. A difficult task for your church, I do not envy you in.

So I don't buy this claim that your modern LDS CHurch which doesn't even act like the LDS Church of Joseph Smith, actually resembles the Apostolic Church. It doesn't.

How would you know what the church in the day of JS acted like compared to how the church today acts. I have to correct you every time you post about what you think our church does or acts.

Pouring water over the head of someone unable to be immersed is legitimate. If they have the desire for Baptism and have proven they have faith then they can be baptized in such a manner because it is the only method available to them. Baptism

Quote me your fine authoritative words only from the bible and see how close you can come to your legitimate claims. A difficult task, I do not envy you in.

. He did abandon them, unless you want to tell me you believe everyone before Joseph Smith preferred their own wisdom to God's?

There were millions of people before JS that were good people that lived the law of Christ. It was primarily the leadership of the people that abandoned God for their thrones, with its independence from pesky apostles, and money, and power. The common people continued to call upon God and receive his wisdom for their own lives and the lives of their families. The leadership could not hear God because of their wickedness, and therefore God left them to their own wisdom and their own imaginations. It did not take long for 2 major schisms to hit the church like a thunderbolt and rocked it from its foundations. It only got worse from there, until in the 1500's the largest church in Christendom was split asunder by the reformers. Now, before the 1600's there were 15 different Christian churches all teaching different doctrines and applying the bible differently. What a mess.

Today, 3500 different Christian churches teaching a montage of Christian values and who God is, with no coherent leadership or direction. Good luck.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 15, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Marriage is fundamental, but not plural marriage. If it was fundamental we would still be practicing plural marriage today.

Why indeed? Why abandon what Joseph Smith restored and that which was sanctified and blessed by God?

Peter1000 said:
If you know the reason blacks were forbidden the priesthood, why ask me? And you certainly know now why we admit blacks to the priesthood. So why ask me?

I only point out that it was a fundamental theological position rooted in the bible as to why your Church forbade blacks the priesthood. It was the opinion of your Prophet that they were cursed of God, the children of Cain and thus unworthy of the priesthood. Was the curse of God undone when blacks were forbidden to the priesthood? Curiously I would ask you if you think the Coptic Church was wrong to allow Ethiopians to have their own people be their Bishops? Seems to me as a Mormon you would have condemn the Ethiopian Church for merely existing.

Peter1000 said:
I have applied only one doctrine to them, only 1, and that was baptism. You cannot mess with baptism. Unless you can say, in the name of Jesus Christ, I have been given a revelation from Jesus Christ that we can sprinkle water on those infirm and without much water. Does the Didache read like that? Or does it just say, you can......?

No one is messing with Baptism. Immersion should be done if there is no obstacle to it. This is what the Didache says. You would know this if you read it.

Peter1000 said:
By what authority did they change the proper way to baptize?

Except they didn't change Baptism, it remains Baptism even if it isn't full immersion.

Peter1000 said:
He must have, for he took it upon himself to change the ordinance of baptism, where he had no authority to do so.

Again, the author of the Didache didn't change Baptism.

Peter1000 said:
Why is this authors book not in the bible if this was God's real way. It is not, so I would suspect it was someones own wisdom, and the compilers of the bible took it that way too.

Interesting you ask this. Who compiled the Bible? The Church you call Apostate which followed the rule of the Didache despite it not being in the bible. The obvious reason this text was not in the Bible is because it was not written during the Apostolic era and you trust the Apostate Church enough to decide your bible for you on this point.

Peter1000 said:
I guess the compilers of the bible in fact did not like the idea that the author took the right to add to the bible did not provide. But I guess that is OK to you?

What sort of question is this? There were clear criterion of what constituted the New Testament, namely that it had to be Apostolic, that is written of an Apostle or close associate. The didache was a second century production and thus could not qualify for the canon. The Didache doesn't add to the Bible but offers a rule or the practice of the Church on matters the Bible doesn't address. The second century Church could not function on a sola scriptura model because access to the Bible was not universal and the practice and belief of hte Church was primarily conveyed through oral means.

Do Mormons believe in Sola Scriptura?

Peter1000 said:

1 Corinthians 15:29 King James Version (KJV)

Click to expand...

Peter1000 said:
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?

Paul is asking these people why are they baptized for the dead.
So it is obvious that people were being baptized for the dead, and did not know why they were.
Paul says if the dead do not rise, why are you doing this?
Paul implies that if the dead do rise, which they do, it is OK to be baptized for the dead.

Like I said, you can quote Paul but this is a contentious verse whose meaning is ambigious. What I'm asking you to demonstrate is that other Christians new of Baptism by proxy, that they were aware of the Mormon interpretation.

Peter1000 said:
I will challenge any church to step up to the plate and compare their church with the first century church in organization and doctrine, and see how close they resemble the original church in the first century. A difficult task for your church, I do not envy you in.

I would eagerly suggest that the actions of the saints, their dedication to God in their vocation, confession and martyrdoms throughout the centuries outweigh anything of the Mormon Church. You cannot explain the faithfulness of someone like Chrysostom whom you have to cast aspersions on not by evidence of his life but by the necessity of your Mormon doctrine. The same goes for any number of the faithful.

Still, the reason I said I do not envy you is because you cannot actually demonstrate a conspiracy to get rid of baptism by Proxy by the Church. This is on you to demonstrate.

Peter1000 said:
How would you know what the church in the day of JS acted like compared to how the church today acts. I have to correct you every time you post about what you think our church does or acts.

Except you haven't corrected me on anything. Joseph Smith engaged in Polyamory, a practice the Apostles did not. You've admitted that the LDS Church since Joseph Smith has changed which would necessarily imply you've gone beyond even what the Apostles established since you say the LDS is nothing more than the Apostolic Church. I don't buy it because it's not true.

Peter1000 said:
Quote me your fine authoritative words only from the bible and see how close you can come to your legitimate claims. A difficult task, I do not envy you in.

Regarding Baptism? I cannot, but if a practice of action omitted from scripture is reason enough to not do it then we can't do very much at all. Where does the Bible give us instruction on how to conduct worship meetings or assemblies? Does the Bible tell us to build temples? Some protestants would condemn both your Church and mine for that and instead prefer house Church services like the Apostles did. Probably both you and me agree that was out of necessity rather than preference for the Apostles.

I apply the same standard to Baptism. Baptism seems to have typically occurred in public pools or rivers in the New Testament. Does that mean we cannot baptize in Church baptisteries which exist in both of our Churches? Does the New Testament forbid Baptism by pouring water on the head three times? What do we know of what Jesus taught regarding the legalism of the pharisees? He condemned it when the person was in need.

This is why I don't understand your criticism of the Didache. You read it as if it was a malicious act of perverse corruption when that was not the intention behind it at all. The Author lists the first means of Baptism as being done in living water. If that cannot be done, then it should be done by other means (I assume the author means a pool of some kind). If Cold water cannot be found then warm and then finally if there is no other means then pour it on the head three times.

Typically this has been interpreted to be a near death situation. Say someone is stuck in the desert and needs to be baptized. The New Testament doesn't go into detail regarding the particularities on that water is required and that we see it done by full immersion. This is not destroyed in the Didache, it is only qualified in exceptional circumstances.

There are way more possibility that had to be considered as well. Does Baptism require the Baptism to be done by a righteous person or can it be done by a non believer? The New Testament doesn't say. Yet we have reasoned that Baptism is done by the power of God, not man and thus the status of the person performing the Baptism does not corrupt it, since God is the one behind it.
What of the re baptism of heretics? New Testament doesn't say and so the Church was left to consider these questions. If the Church were to apply your standards it would have been left paralyzed and unable to act at all. The fathers and theologians of the Church took great care in the issue and were not callous or insistent about their own wisdom on this matter. It was of crucial importance to them and great effort was spent on trying to find out the best option.

I've been rereading Cyril and what strikes me is his insistence on Christian living and consequences for the re admittance of the lapsed. Scripture actually doesn't address this issue because the Apostles were not faced with the persecution the Church then suffered and why should he be condemned for his understanding of things? Or his motives impugned simply because you think every Church leader was corrupt? History is not so simple as to condemn every priest as a charlatan.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 16, 2019

Peter1000 said:
There were millions of people before JS that were good people that lived the law of Christ. It was primarily the leadership of the people that abandoned God for their thrones, with its independence from pesky apostles, and money, and power. The common people continued to call upon God and receive his wisdom for their own lives and the lives of their families.

So you've said yet you have not established that every one of our leaders was corrupt. My question to you is how much of the fathers themselves and their lives have you read? Be honest.

I've read Athanasius, Cyril, Maximos, Basil, Nazianzus, Ignatius, Clement, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome and so many more. Nothing in there leads me to suspect these were men who didn't care about the divine, who didn't scrutinize the scripture and themselves in order to live up to Christian perfection.

I understand the appeal of your narrative, that the corrupt leaders manipulated the poor masses but it runs into problems when we have to deal with particular examples. For every bad action you can name by churchmen I can name three more good actions, be that martyrdoms or sufferings which you cannot explain because as a Mormon it would make no sense.

Ignatius, per Mormon understanding could not be as his letters indicate. If he were good, why didn't God appoint him an Apostle?

Peter1000 said:
The leadership could not hear God because of their wickedness, and therefore God left them to their own wisdom and their own imaginations. It did not take long for 2 major schisms to hit the church like a thunderbolt and rocked it from its foundations. It only got worse from there, until in the 1500's the largest church in Christendom was split asunder by the reformers. Now, before the 1600's there were 15 different Christian churches all teaching different doctrines and applying the bible differently. What a mess.

I'm not defending the Catholic Church or the Protestant Church. I have criticisms for both and particularly the latter. Still, if God could raise a sinful peasant like Peter to a position of Apostle, there is no reason he couldn't do that with anyone else escept that he didn't want to. You still have no answer to this problem because you will then insist that something was lacking in not only the clergy but all people which goes against what you said before about there being good lay people. Peter wasn't good, he was a sinner and even he was able to be an Apostle.

Peter1000 said:
Today, 3500 different Christian churches teaching a montage of Christian values and who God is, with no coherent leadership or direction. Good luck.

Those 3500 are the fault of Protestantism's Sola Scriptura ideology and the inability of Protestantism to hold together. I am not defending it.

Peter1000 · Aug 16, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Why indeed? Why abandon what Joseph Smith restored and that which was sanctified and blessed by God?

Because God blessed and sanctified the end of plural marriage by another more current prophet, as the reason for plural marriage had accomplished its purpose. A one-wife marriage is the normal marriage arrangement in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I only point out that it was a fundamental theological position rooted in the bible as to why your Church forbade blacks the priesthood. It was the opinion of your Prophet that they were cursed of God, the children of Cain and thus unworthy of the priesthood. Was the curse of God undone when blacks were forbidden to the priesthood? Curiously I would ask you if you think the Coptic Church was wrong to allow Ethiopians to have their own people be their Bishops? Seems to me as a Mormon you would have condemn the Ethiopian Church for merely existing.

Again, you miss the point that Jesus can give instructions that all male members of the church can now hold the priesthhod, and our prophet who received the instructions does not argue with Jesus, despite going contrary to BY. BY in irrelevant in that conversation between Jesus and the current prophet.

Over the years since BY, many blacks were members of the church, it is that they could not hold the priesthood, until 1978 when Jesus gave our prophet the instructions that all worthy men can hold the priesthood. That was over 40 years ago now. Africa is one of the fastest growing areas in the church, with 10 full temples and tens of churches and growing strong.

No one is messing with Baptism. Immersion should be done if there is no obstacle to it. This is what the Didache says. You would know this if you read it.

I am the one that quoted from it and brought it up in the first place. You mess with baptism if you say its OK to baptize by sprinkling. Which it says. It is not OK to sprinkle, per the bible, find me a scripture in the NT that says you can sprinkle under certain conditions. Good luck.

Except they didn't change Baptism, it remains Baptism even if it isn't full immersion.

How can you actually say this with a straight face.

Interesting you ask this. Who compiled the Bible? The Church you call Apostate which followed the rule of the Didache despite it not being in the bible. The obvious reason this text was not in the Bible is because it was not written during the Apostolic era and you trust the Apostate Church enough to decide your bible for you on this point.

Yes isn't that interesting, even the apostate church rejected the Didache for the bible.

Like I said, you can quote Paul but this is a contentious verse whose meaning is ambigious. What I'm asking you to demonstrate is that other Christians new of Baptism by proxy, that they were aware of the Mormon interpretation.

The verse is a little ambiguous, but it is clear from the scripture that people were doing baptizing for the dead. I do not know if other Christians were or are aware of this doctrine. When I explained it on my mission, people thought that was a fair way for God to get everyone baptized.

Still, the reason I said I do not envy you is because you cannot actually demonstrate a conspiracy to get rid of baptism by Proxy by the Church. This is on you to demonstrate.

What time period are you talking about concerning a conspiracy to get rid of baptism by proxy by the church? I cannot demonstrate that there was ever a conspiracy to get rid of proxy baptism. I believe that was part of the meat that Paul could not teach the people because of their unbelief of even the milk. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Except you haven't corrected me on anything. Joseph Smith engaged in Polyamory, a practice the Apostles did not. You've admitted that the LDS Church since Joseph Smith has changed which would necessarily imply you've gone beyond even what the Apostles established since you say the LDS is nothing more than the Apostolic Church. I don't buy it because it's not true.

Anther correction: JS did not practice Polyamory. There are critics that say he did, but a close study of the issue shows that he did not. But the lie is better than the truth for some and so is continued. And of course the apostles did not do this.

Church policies can change, and they have since JS, but fundamental doctrines do not change and have never changed in the church since JS. Another correction. Buy it or not.

Regarding Baptism? I cannot, but if a practice of action omitted from scripture is reason enough to not do it then we can't do very much at all. Where does the Bible give us instruction on how to conduct worship meetings or assemblies? Does the Bible tell us to build temples? Some protestants would condemn both your Church and mine for that and instead prefer house Church services like the Apostles did. Probably both you and me agree that was out of necessity rather than preference for the Apostles.

The bible is silent on many matters, but not on baptism, a fundamental doctrine of the church.

I agree, the churches membership swelled in the beginning the house church could no longer handle the meetings, and larger buildings were needed to accommodate the crowds.

I apply the same standard to Baptism. Baptism seems to have typically occurred in public pools or rivers in the New Testament. Does that mean we cannot baptize in Church baptisteries which exist in both of our Churches? Does the New Testament forbid Baptism by pouring water on the head three times? What do we know of what Jesus taught regarding the legalism of the pharisees? He condemned it when the person was in need.

There is no example of someone in need that could not be baptized by immersion.

This is why I don't understand your criticism of the Didache. You read it as if it was a malicious act of perverse corruption when that was not the intention behind it at all. The Author lists the first means of Baptism as being done in living water. If that cannot be done, then it should be done by other means (I assume the author means a pool of some kind). If Cold water cannot be found then warm and then finally if there is no other means then pour it on the head three times.

It actually was a good read. It was a good look at the church early in the 2nd century. I thought it was interesting it was giving instructions to the church to throw out men claiming to be apostles, who were coming and taking advantage of the people because of their title of apostle. Very interesting.

I did take note of the way they came up with a solution for sprinkling. It showed that even this early on, the people were willing to mess with a fundamental doctrine like baptism. That is all.

Typically this has been interpreted to be a near death situation. Say someone is stuck in the desert and needs to be baptized. The New Testament doesn't go into detail regarding the particularities on that water is required and that we see it done by full immersion. This is not destroyed in the Didache, it is only qualified in exceptional circumstances.

This seems to be a real sticking point with you, probably because your church doesn't care how or if you are baptized. But there is only one way that is described in the bible as to how someone is baptized. If you can show me another alternative way because of some condition, please quote me the verse.

There are way more possibility that had to be considered as well. Does Baptism require the Baptism to be done by a righteous person or can it be done by a non believer? The New Testament doesn't say. Yet we have reasoned that Baptism is done by the power of God, not man and thus the status of the person performing the Baptism does not corrupt it, since God is the one behind it.

A person that has the binding and loosing authority is the only person who has God behind him. Only one that has this power can bind a person in baptism and heaven will recognize it too.
That means a lot of baptisms are going to have to be done over by proxy by one holding that binding power. (See Matthew 16:19) Jesus gave this power to Peter and the apostles.

What of the re baptism of heretics? New Testament doesn't say and so the Church was left to consider these questions. If the Church were to apply your standards it would have been left paralyzed and unable to act at all. The fathers and theologians of the Church took great care in the issue and were not callous or insistent about their own wisdom on this matter. It was of crucial importance to them and great effort was spent on trying to find out the best option.

What was their best option and where did that option come from?

I've been rereading Cyril and what strikes me is his insistence on Christian living and consequences for the re admittance of the lapsed. Scripture actually doesn't address this issue because the Apostles were not faced with the persecution the Church then suffered and why should he be condemned for his understanding of things? Or his motives impugned simply because you think every Church leader was corrupt? History is not so simple as to condemn every priest as a charlatan.

Cyril was a philosopher first. That means he may have prayed to Jesus for answers, but he also used his best skills as a thinker and organizer. In many cases, these very brilliant scholars began to teach contrary to the bible because of their great egos and brilliant maneuvering and need for glory and recognition. Kind of like writing a controversial book because it will sell better if there is a little controversy. Then they make their case and stick to it, causing conflict in the church. Every priest was not a charlatan of course. But many were. Many more charlatans than good. Sorry, read your history, read what the priests and followers of Dioscorus in the 2nd council of Ephesus did to Flavian the bishop of Constantinople who opposed Dioscorus to get a little snapshot of what was going on between the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria. It was not a good thing among the vicars of Christ.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Because God blessed and sanctified the end of plural marriage by another more current prophet, as the reason for plural marriage had accomplished its purpose. A one-wife marriage is the normal marriage arrangement in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If it was the normal arrangement of the Gospel to have to but one wife, why did it need to be instituted? So we have a situation here which by your own admission the Church strays from the Apostolic practice, moves towards Polygamy and Polyamorous marriage and then returns to the Apostolic practice? Is then the value of the Apostolic practice equal to the value of Polygamous marriage in that it could be potentially revoked at any time by any prophet because they feel God desires it?

So we have an example here, unless you want to clarify, of the LDS Church exceeding the bounds of the Apostolic Church and you think this justified. Yet you condemn the Church for not removing baptism, not changing it, but adding a qualification to the practice because of a specific physical need to not hurt the person in question or perhaps because of a particular location?

Peter1000 said:
Again, you miss the point that Jesus can give instructions that all male members of the church can now hold the priesthhod, and our prophet who received the instructions does not argue with Jesus, despite going contrary to BY. BY in irrelevant in that conversation between Jesus and the current prophet.

This doesn’t change the point that blacks are the children of Cain and subject to the curse of Cain. This seems an important part of the doctrine and not something merely done for practice or non-spiritual considerations. It speaks to the blacks being less valiant in their pre mortal existence no? That is they were lesser in the desire to serve God before they were born and so are given black bodies as a punishment right? This was the justification for refusing them the priesthood. God didn’t forgive them at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion despite him dying for sins but forgave them forty years ago? Why?

Peter1000 said:
I am the one that quoted from it and brought it up in the first place. You mess with baptism if you say its OK to baptize by sprinkling. Which it says. It is not OK to sprinkle, per the bible, find me a scripture in the NT that says you can sprinkle under certain conditions. Good luck.

Again, Baptism has not been messed with. This is why I compared you earlier to a Pharisee who sees the Sabbath instead of the sick man. In your rush to fulfil the law you forget there is a person in need who requires baptism though it cannot be done the preferred way. This is why I explained subsequently why there are many things the Church does not mentioned in scripture.

Peter1000 said:
Yes isn't that interesting, even the apostate church rejected the Didache for the bible.

It should be interesting to you that the Apostate Church filled with nothing but evil priests was able to discern what the word of God was. How were they, though so corrupt and evil, able to preserve the word of God for 2000 years and not only preserve it, but canonize it and standardize it for the Mormon Church? I would imagine if your narrative about the corrupt priests and leaders of the Church was correct, this would not be possible since they would have tried to at every angle distort the Gospel and Bible in and of itself.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] The verse is a little ambiguous, but it is clear from the scripture that people were doing baptizing for the dead. I do not know if other Christians were or are aware of this doctrine. When I explained it on my mission, people thought that was a fair way for God to get everyone baptized. [/QUOTE]

My point is that you cannot expect ancient people to go by your standards.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] What time period are you talking about concerning a conspiracy to get rid of baptism by proxy by the church? I cannot demonstrate that there was ever a conspiracy to get rid of proxy baptism. I believe that was part of the meat that Paul could not teach the people because of their unbelief of even the milk. (1 Corinthians 3:2) [/QUOTE]

Then you can’t blame later generations for being unable to do proxy Baptism. The concept itself is not all that hard and if Paul had been practicing it in a regular Apostolic fashion I see no reason for why it should have disappeared when so many practices aspects of the Church remained preserved for centuries to come.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] Anther correction: JS did not practice Polyamory. There are critics that say he did, but a close study of the issue shows that he did not. But the lie is better than the truth for some and so is continued. And of course the apostles did not do this. [/QUOTE]

Not true. A couple of examples.

Zina D.H Young was married to Henry Bailey Jacobs at the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith.

Lydia Farnsworth was sealed to Brigham Young despite being married and living with another man.

Your prophets engaged in spiritual Polyamory, which is perhaps worse than physical polyamory because it has eternal consequences. Will these women be shared in heaven?

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] Church policies can change, and they have since JS, but fundamental doctrines do not change and have never changed in the church since JS. Another correction. Buy it or not. [/QUOTE]

I think I’ve established that it is more than a Church policy. Joseph Smith seemed to think so. Actually Joseph Smith is reported to have been threatened with death by an Angel if this practice wasn’t promulgated. This is despite it being publically forbidden.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] The bible is silent on many matters, but not on baptism, a fundamental doctrine of the church. [/QUOTE]

The Bible doesn’t address the question of full immersion. It only gives examples of it. You earlier demanded of me where pouring water was acceptable in the bible. I would ask where in the Bible we are told Baptism can be done by immersion only, no exceptions. The description of an action does not mean anything unlike it is prohibited.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] There is no example of someone in need that could not be baptized by immersion. [/QUOTE]

Hence why the Didache author offers a practice, likely not originating from himself but was already an established Church practice.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] It actually was a good read. It was a good look at the church early in the 2nd century. I thought it was interesting it was giving instructions to the church to throw out men claiming to be apostles, who were coming and taking advantage of the people because of their title of apostle. Very interesting.

I did take note of the way they came up with a solution for sprinkling. It showed that even this early on, the people were willing to mess with a fundamental doctrine like baptism. That is all. [/QUOTE]

When you keep repeating your argument it really doesn’t add to the conversation. Why is it a distortion of Baptism when the precedent is set forth that Baptism should be done by full immersion in living water (a river)? The author is clearly not messing around with it based on nothing but based on a need or restriction. I don’t understand why you can’t accept this.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] This seems to be a real sticking point with you, probably because your church doesn't care how or if you are baptized. But there is only one way that is described in the bible as to how someone is baptized. If you can show me another alternative way because of some condition, please quote me the verse. [/QUOTE]

The Orthodox Church has strict requirements of Baptism and it is almost always done by full immersion. Often converts from other Churches are asked to be rebaptised by the Bishop. Something I actually disagree with but I respect their wisdom. That you could say this sort of thing, I thinks exhibits a presumption on your part, that because I accept baptism by pouring three times on the head, that I don’t care how it is done. The Didache is quite clear about this as well if you read it carefully and with some charity.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] A person that has the binding and loosing authority is the only person who has God behind him. Only one that has this power can bind a person in baptism and heaven will recognize it too.

That means a lot of baptisms are going to have to be done over by proxy by one holding that binding power. (See Matthew 16:19) Jesus gave this power to Peter and the apostles. [/QUOTE]

It would seem to me a majority of people will never have a proxy Baptism and it has to be done on earth before the final judgement. The bohemian Peasent in the 13th century, forgotten to history, cannot receive his baptism.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] What was their best option and where did that option come from? [/QUOTE]

Typically when receiving the fallen into the Church they were treated differently based on the category they fell into. When it came to rebaptism it had to be determined based on the type of belief the person had been baptised into. Those during Cyprians time who fell during the persecutions for instance had to go through a long penance before they could enter the Church and receive communion. Though if on their deathbed they would be allowed communion. The council of Nicaea (canon 19) declared that the Paulianists should be rebaptised if they sought to enter the Catholic communion. This is due to the Paulianist baptism being done through an adoptionist theology instead of them practicing Christianity a different way. What mattered to the fathers was the formula of the Baptism and the theology behind it.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74217005, member: 382212”] Cyril was a philosopher first. That means he may have prayed to Jesus for answers, but he also used his best skills as a thinker and organizer. In many cases, these very brilliant scholars began to teach contrary to the bible because of their great egos and brilliant maneuvering and need for glory and recognition. Kind of like writing a controversial book because it will sell better if there is a little controversy. Then they make their case and stick to it, causing conflict in the church. Every priest was not a charlatan of course. But many were. Many more charlatans than good. Sorry, read your history, read what the priests and followers of Dioscorus in the 2nd council of Ephesus did to Flavian the bishop of Constantinople who opposed Dioscorus to get a little snapshot of what was going on between the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria. It was not a good thing among the vicars of Christ.[/QUOTE]

I actually mistyped the name and was thinking of Cyprian as my prime example.

I find the Mormon prejudice against philosophers amazing. I am not convinced Cyril was a philosopher actually. He seems to have been educated classically, as virtually everyone of high status was back then but should education really be an obstacle to truth? Classical education was not beyond the subject of Church criticism and more often than not the Christian disregard for the mythological stories and attitudes was the norm among the fathers. I like Augustine’s city of God in this way, the way he deconstructs the pagan stories and reveals how capricious and arbitrary the gods are.

For the claim that there were many more charlatans than good, I would ask, whom were they? How do you go about establishing this as a matter of history? You would need to draw up lists. Read all of these works, take comprehensive notes of their lives. Weigh the negatives with the positives and then come to the conclusion of either good, neutral or bad I suppose. It seems to me the better way to look at things is to recognise the Church was always full sinners (of which I count myself). That the presence of the corrupt cannot outshine the examples of the saints whom the Church reveres as sacred examples, either for their teaching or their lives. Yet even those saints were sinners. I think it was Basil the Great who said that though he was a virgin he was not pure. Yet he established hospitals and abided by the Monastic ethic his entire life.

I am also aware of the intrigue of the Church, it’s people to each other and to the state. Where you and I differ is that I believe the power of God can overcome those corrupting influences. You see it and say God could not possibly be there in the presence of such sin.

Peter1000 · Aug 20, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If it was the normal arrangement of the Gospel to have to but one wife, why did it need to be instituted? So we have a situation here which by your own admission the Church strays from the Apostolic practice, moves towards Polygamy and Polyamorous marriage and then returns to the Apostolic practice? Is then the value of the Apostolic practice equal to the value of Polygamous marriage in that it could be potentially revoked at any time by any prophet because they feel God desires it?

Here are the reasons it needed to be instituted:
1) the persecution of the church members left many widows, and how were we going to take care of these women and their families?
2) because of the persecution, the Lord instituted plural marriage to increase the population of the church faster than normal increases in population, so that a critical mass could be reached where governments and mobs could not wipe out the church.

By 1890's the problems were solved, and the US was passing laws prohibiting plural marriage and so the Lord made it known that it was time to end the practice. So since the 1890's we have practiced monogamous marriage in the church.

So we have an example here, unless you want to clarify, of the LDS Church exceeding the bounds of the Apostolic Church and you think this justified. Yet you condemn the Church for not removing baptism, not changing it, but adding a qualification to the practice because of a specific physical need to not hurt the person in question or perhaps because of a particular location?

Our prophets only do what the Lord tells them to do. Whether that is going beyond what the ancient apostles did is not relevant, it is what Jesus wants.

My point is that you cannot expect ancient people to go by your standards.

I don't, in fact we are going by their standard, obviously people were baptizing for the dead. Whether they knew way or not is a question, but they were doing it. So are we.

Your prophets engaged in spiritual Polyamory, which is perhaps worse than physical polyamory because it has eternal consequences. Will these women be shared in heaven?

At least our first 2 prophets did marry women while they were married to other men. But they married them for eternity, after they both died. The women continued to live with their husbands while they lived on earth, but when they died, they then lived with their eternal partner.
Why that would make a difference for you, I don't know, since you believe that at death all marriages are annulled. So to you, what JS and BY did in terms of marriage not for time, but for eternity only was null and void and harmless.

The Bible doesn’t address the question of full immersion. It only gives examples of it. You earlier demanded of me where pouring water was acceptable in the bible. I would ask where in the Bible we are told Baptism can be done by immersion only, no exceptions. The description of an action does not mean anything unlike it is prohibited.

The only words we have and the only examples we have are all having to do with immersion. So mess with it as you will, but I will stick to immersion only. That is a safe position.

It would seem to me a majority of people will never have a proxy Baptism and it has to be done on earth before the final judgement. The bohemian Peasent in the 13th century, forgotten to history, cannot receive his baptism.

If Jesus knows every hair on a bird, he is not going to forget a far more valuable Bohemian peasant, promise you. Nobody will be left behind. All will have a chance to have a full immersion baptism by one holding the binding and loosing power, before the final judgement is pronounced.

I find the Mormon prejudice against philosophers amazing.

Why is that amazing, the church fathers first and foremost after 2 generation from Christ were all highborn, high educated, high society people that were philosophers first and organizers second, and men of God third, if they were even men of God. Philosophers were pure guessers, and with their precious research and study made statements about Christ that were unbiblical and in the wrong direction, but because they were famous, they moved Christ to where it would best benefit them in their power struggle. History shows they were horrible for the most part, and were rulers rather than shepherds, hardly having anything to do with the flock except a pompous public discourse, using their oratory skills to wow the people and manipulate them to do as they wanted. Not good people. Read your Christian history to find out how many more charlatans there were over good shephards. It is astounding. I believe if Jesus had been brought to their courts of intrigue, they would have treated him roughly.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Aug 22, 2019

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212”] I don't, in fact we are going by their standard, obviously people were baptizing for the dead. Whether they knew way or not is a question, but they were doing it. So are we. [/QUOTE]

That’s not a standard. That’s a Mormon assumption and one you cannot demonstrate was actually in practice. All you have is an interpretation based on Paul. The early Church evidently didn’t have this, so I would ask you to consider the reason why they practiced baptism the way they did. Was it to corrupt Baptism? No. It was to fulfil the command to baptize to begin with.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212] The only words we have and the only examples we have are all having to do with immersion. So mess with it as you will, but I will stick to immersion only. That is a safe position. [/QUOTE]

Then no Baptisms should have been performed for those who could not be fully immersed for these last two thousand years. That is an unacceptable option.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212] If Jesus knows every hair on a bird, he is not going to forget a far more valuable Bohemian peasant, promise you. Nobody will be left behind. All will have a chance to have a full immersion baptism by one holding the binding and loosing power, before the final judgement is pronounced. [/QUOTE]

How? Why do you do it now for certain people if everyone is going to be baptised in the end anyway?

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212] Why is that amazing, the church fathers first and foremost after 2 generation from Christ were all highborn, high educated, high society people that were philosophers first and organizers second, and men of God third, if they were even men of God. [/QUOTE]

I find this assumption lacking perspective. You assume they were all elites who cared nothing for God yet I would remind you of what the consequences of becoming a clergyman was for a Churchman within the context of the first three hundred or so years. We can talk about later periods if you wish, but first and foremost it was to mark yourself out as a target of persecution. Often the leaders of the Church were targeted in order to strike fear into the communities. Also, at least from my knowledge, we see the celibate habit of clergy developing early although it was not formalized like in later centuries. Most of the Bishops we have the names of don’t appear to be married, so many Church leaders were giving up having progeny, which was by in far a power motivator for the ancient person. Finally I would suggest that Christians weren’t all highborn, many were and we have examples of that, but why should this necessarily be counted as a bad thing? John Chrysostom was born a high status and gave it all up to live as a monastic, only called to be a Bishop years later.

We have the example of Cyprian who was a rich pagan, fed up with Rome and was tired of pagan frivolity. He was lead to Christianity through its thorough adherence to virtue. So for you to generalize of Christians at this period seems wrong and anachronistic.

I think there is rightful criticism to be made of the later Church, especially when clergy became estates unto themselves. Simony being a particular problem though even that system had its benefits which cannot be denied and we cannot assume as a rule that a majority did not care for God. As A Mormon I understand you are forced to, but my question for you would be what the sources say.

How can anyone make a comprehensive case based on a few examples? I can only provide historical examples to contradict your narrative that all were bad. I can readily admit there were bad things that happened but this doesn’t refute the standard idea of the Church as a whole. That there are wheat and tares even among the clergy.

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212] Philosophers were pure guessers, and with their precious research and study made statements about Christ that were unbiblical and in the wrong direction, but because they were famous, they moved Christ to where it would best benefit them in their power struggle. [/QUOTE]

How are you going to go about in establishing this point? Are you suggesting that the fathers were not serious in their exegesis of scripture or that they didn’t struggle with the influences of the pagan world around him? I recall Jerome having a dream where he was warned about his infatuation with pagan literature and he endeavoured to dedicate himself all the more the scriptures, it’s translation and application in his life.

This makes for a popular narrative but what is it based on? You can quote any number of the fathers and their more obtuse ideas but to impugn their motives or study or dedication to Christ is far beyond absurd. I mean who is the prime example philosophizing corrupting the Church in your mind?

[QUOTE="Peter1000, post: 74227133, member: 382212] History shows they were horrible for the most part, and were rulers rather than shepherds, hardly having anything to do with the flock except a pompous public discourse, using their oratory skills to wow the people and manipulate them to do as they wanted. Not good people. Read your Christian history to find out how many more charlatans there were over good shephards. It is astounding. I believe if Jesus had been brought to their courts of intrigue, they would have treated him roughly.[/QUOTE]

Peter when you tell me to read my Christian history I have to inform you that I’ve dedicated a good portion of my life to reading it. Not as well as I should have but well enough to have a comprehension of the historic Church above the lay level.

When you accuse all the clergy of being charlatans and make no exception, again and again I have to think this is done deliberately on purpose despite what I consider as the positive examples of Christian leaders I have provided. In which case I do not know how this conversation can continue since I think you are so adamant about believing in the corruption or seeing it everywhere and behind every reasoning that it makes genuine historic appraisal impossible.

It reminds me of how the Muslims treat Saint Paul. He is the villain. Nothing he could have done was legitimate, the arch corruptor of Christianity and destroyer of God’s truth. All the while they white wash their own Prophet’s origin and refuse to acknowledge any sin he may have committed.

What evidence could be produced to contradict your supposed belief that every single clergyman was corrupt after the Apostles? Would you be keen to discuss one figure of history and determine whether or not they were a man of God?

Peter1000 · Aug 22, 2019

Ignatius the Kiwi, says:

That’s not a standard. That’s a Mormon assumption and one you cannot demonstrate was actually in practice. All you have is an interpretation based on Paul. The early Church evidently didn’t have this, so I would ask you to consider the reason why they practiced baptism the way they did. Was it to corrupt Baptism? No. It was to fulfil the command to baptize to begin with.

In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul is asking a question: Why are people being baptized for the dead?
This is not a Mormon assumption or interpretation. Paul said this and the reasonable assumption from both you and me would be that people were indeed baptizing people for the dead. Like I say, they may not have known why they were, but we do know that they were.

These people could have been saved members or they could have been associated with Gnostics or any other of the sects that sprang out of early Christianity, for the scripture is not clear who they were. So we cannot say that it was practicing discipline in the early church. But we cannot say that it was not either. There just is not enough information for you or me to make that decision.

For us, it does not matter if they did or didn't. We are not stuck on what the early church did, because we have current prophets that tell us what Jesus wants us to do today. He tells us to do baptism for the dead, so we do. Simple.

How? Why do you do it now for certain people if everyone is going to be baptised in the end anyway?

We have been given the duty, as instructed by Jesus Christ, to baptize everyone we can find that has passed away. There are billions, and billions, and billions of people that will need this work done, and so we are just really starting to get a handle on it, but after the 2nd coming, you will see temples going 24/7 to finish the work.

Here is what is interesting about baptizing someone for the dead. Every time I go to the temple to do this work, I hear afresh the baptismal covenants that I made when I was baptized, and it solidifies my resolve to do what I committed to the Lord then. IOW by helping someone to have the baptism of the water and the baptism of the spirit, it help me too, to stay strong in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I find this assumption lacking perspective. You assume they were all elites who cared nothing for God yet I would remind you of what the consequences of becoming a clergyman was for a Churchman within the context of the first three hundred or so years. We can talk about later periods if you wish, but first and foremost it was to mark yourself out as a target of persecution. Often the leaders of the Church were targeted in order to strike fear into the communities. Also, at least from my knowledge, we see the celibate habit of clergy developing early although it was not formalized like in later centuries. Most of the Bishops we have the names of don’t appear to be married, so many Church leaders were giving up having progeny, which was by in far a power motivator for the ancient person. Finally I would suggest that Christians weren’t all highborn, many were and we have examples of that, but why should this necessarily be counted as a bad thing? John Chrysostom was born a high status and gave it all up to live as a monastic, only called to be a Bishop years later.

I have read the history and I do agree with what you have said here. There were hundreds of good people that were men of God, but I truly believe that there eventually came a time, even as early as 180, when other interests besides taking care of the flock became paramount in the lives of a large number of the leadership.

High born usually means they are used to luxury. Yes, many gave up their riches to be monks and bishops and did well, but more needed the luxury they were accustomed to and therefore built lavish houses and palaces and thrones, and gardens etc., etc., etc.

How are you going to go about in establishing this point? Are you suggesting that the fathers were not serious in their exegesis of scripture or that they didn’t struggle with the influences of the pagan world around him? I recall Jerome having a dream where he was warned about his infatuation with pagan literature and he endeavored to dedicate himself all the more the scriptures, it’s translation and application in his life.

I can establish it by reading all about the multitude of doctrinal debates. Practically every page of the history of Christianity is another father giving his take on the nature of the Godhead, and how these different doctrines form a kaleidoscope of interpretations that lead to constant debate and excommunications and exiles and schisms that discomforted the church.

When you accuse all the clergy of being charlatans and make no exception, again and again I have to think this is done deliberately on purpose despite what I consider as the positive examples of Christian leaders I have provided. In which case I do not know how this conversation can continue since I think you are so adamant about believing in the corruption or seeing it everywhere and behind every reasoning that it makes genuine historic appraisal impossible.

I have never accused all the clergy, not once. I have maintained that there were hundreds of good clergy, but they were a minority of the clergy, especially the high, reverend clergy.

It reminds me of how the Muslims treat Saint Paul. He is the villain. Nothing he could have done was legitimate, the arch corruptor of Christianity and destroyer of God’s truth. All the while they white wash their own Prophet’s origin and refuse to acknowledge any sin he may have committed.

This is what Peter says of Paul's epistles:
2 Peter 3:15-16 King James Version (KJV)
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you.
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Wow, the unlearned and unstable better read Paul twice or three times or they may be destroyed if they misinterpret him. Peter seems to think that is possible.

Many Christians believe the words of Paul and put the words of Jesus in a second position, because many of the words of Jesus are of the 'keep my commandments' type, and some of Paul says "don't have to do good works". So who are you going to favor?

But I will guarantee that if you do not listen to all of Paul, you will not be saved.

Peter1000 · Sep 13, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge

OK, let's make a list of the different offices that existed in the first century church, and then compare those offices to your church today and see which church comes closest to the original Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints.

OK, here is the list, I can provide scripture from the bible if you need:
Apostles
Prophets
Evangelists
Deacons
Teachers
Priests
Elders
Pastors
Seventy
Bishops

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have all of these offices in our church. How does that compare to the biblical Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints? Very well.

How does your church organization compare to the Church of Jesus Christ of First-century Saints?

Daniel Marsh · Sep 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
By what authority did they change the proper way to baptize?

First I Cor 15:29 says why did they baptize for the dead. It was one of pagan mystery cults that did that, not Christians.

The Didache did not change the methods of Baptism. In Judaism which predates and the culture the NT was written in --- what is in the Didache was common practices.

Ezekiel 36:25a
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ...

Daniel Marsh · Sep 17, 2019

Peter1000 said:
Marriage is fundamental, but not plural marriage. If it was fundamental we would still be practicing plural marriage today.

If you know the reason blacks were forbidden the priesthood, why ask me? And you certainly know now why we admit blacks to the priesthood. So why ask me?

I have applied only one doctrine to them, only 1, and that was baptism. You cannot mess with baptism. Unless you can say, in the name of Jesus Christ, I have been given a revelation from Jesus Christ that we can sprinkle water on those infirm and without much water. Does the Didache read like that? Or does it just say, you can......?

By what authority did they change the proper way to baptize?

He must have, for he took it upon himself to change the ordinance of baptism, where he had no authority to do so.

Why is this authors book not in the bible if this was God's real way. It is not, so I would suspect it was someones own wisdom, and the compilers of the bible took it that way too.

I guess the compilers of the bible in fact did not like the idea that the author took the right to add to the bible did not provide. But I guess that is OK to you?

1 Corinthians 15:29 King James Version (KJV)
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?

Paul is asking these people why are they baptized for the dead.
So it is obvious that people were being baptized for the dead, and did not know why they were.
Paul says if the dead do not rise, why are you doing this?
Paul implies that if the dead do rise, which they do, it is OK to be baptized for the dead.

I just did, see 1 Corinthians 15:29 above. It is the only scripture in the bible that refers to baptism for the dead. But it demonstrates that some were obviously doing this practice.

I will challenge any church to step up to the plate and compare their church with the first century church in organization and doctrine, and see how close they resemble the original church in the first century. A difficult task for your church, I do not envy you in.

How would you know what the church in the day of JS acted like compared to how the church today acts. I have to correct you every time you post about what you think our church does or acts.

Quote me your fine authoritative words only from the bible and see how close you can come to your legitimate claims. A difficult task, I do not envy you in.

There were millions of people before JS that were good people that lived the law of Christ. It was primarily the leadership of the people that abandoned God for their thrones, with its independence from pesky apostles, and money, and power. The common people continued to call upon God and receive his wisdom for their own lives and the lives of their families. The leadership could not hear God because of their wickedness, and therefore God left them to their own wisdom and their own imaginations. It did not take long for 2 major schisms to hit the church like a thunderbolt and rocked it from its foundations. It only got worse from there, until in the 1500's the largest church in Christendom was split asunder by the reformers. Now, before the 1600's there were 15 different Christian churches all teaching different doctrines and applying the bible differently. What a mess.

Today, 3500 different Christian churches teaching a montage of Christian values and who God is, with no coherent leadership or direction. Good luck.

That is a myth that even Catholic Apologetists refutes.

Daniel Marsh · Sep 17, 2019

JOURNAL ARTICLE
Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology
Richard E. DeMaris
Journal of Biblical Literature
Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 661-682
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
DOI: 10.2307/3266480
Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology on JSTOR

Baptism for the dead was by the mystery religions not by Christians.

Peter1000 · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
First I Cor 15:29 says why did they baptize for the dead. It was one of pagan mystery cults that did that, not Christians.

The Didache did not change the methods of Baptism. In Judaism which predates and the culture the NT was written in --- what is in the Didache was common practices.

Ezekiel 36:25a
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ...

What happened in the OT, as you know, was changed by a new testament, or new culture, and what the Didache did was to ignore the new testament baptismal protocol, and either introduced sprinkling or tried to stay with the old testament (which was superseded by the new).

So whoever wrote the Dichache was rather cavalier about we can do this and it does not matter. But it does. They were changing an ordinance to fit their needs, which Jesus did not intend for them to do. The entire baptismal process has major symbolic emphasis, which sprinkling completely destroys. So Jesus wanted it done in a specific way, which he showed us by example.
This is the way we do it today. Any other process does not validate the baptism.

Paul did not correct those baptizing for the dead. He just reasoned that if the dead rise not at all, why are you baptizing for the dead. The reverse is also true. If the dead do rise, I understand why you are baptizing for the dead.

Peter1000 · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology
Richard E. DeMaris
Journal of Biblical Literature
Vol. 114, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 661-682
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
DOI: 10.2307/3266480
Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology on JSTOR

Baptism for the dead was by the mystery religions not by Christians.

Paul was talking to Christians, and we believe he was referring to Christians. Yes, you are right, mystery religions could have also been baptizing for the dead, but we believe Christians were doing the same, so Paul asked the question.

Remember, there were Christians that did not believe in the resurrection, so again, some of these Christians could have been baptizing for the dead and Paul asks why, if the dead do not rise?
1 Corinthians 15:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

If some Christians did not even believe in the resurrection, certainly there could be Chrisitans that were zealously baptizing for the dead without clear knowledge of why they were.

Peter1000 · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
That is a myth that even Catholic Apologetists refutes.

I am not sure what you are calling a myth that even Catholic Apologetsts refute?

Daniel Marsh · Sep 18, 2019

Peter1000 said:
What happened in the OT, as you know, was changed by a new testament, or new culture, and what the Didache did was to ignore the new testament baptismal protocol, and either introduced sprinkling or tried to stay with the old testament (which was superseded by the new).

So whoever wrote the Dichache was rather cavalier about we can do this and it does not matter. But it does. They were changing an ordinance to fit their needs, which Jesus did not intend for them to do. The entire baptismal process has major symbolic emphasis, which sprinkling completely destroys. So Jesus wanted it done in a specific way, which he showed us by example.
This is the way we do it today. Any other process does not validate the baptism.

Paul did not correct those baptizing for the dead. He just reasoned that if the dead rise not at all, why are you baptizing for the dead. The reverse is also true. If the dead do rise, I understand why you are baptizing for the dead.

You are off base my friend, The Culture of the NT had all those methods as common practice based on the availability of water. Not everything the Apostles and Jesus did was not written down.

With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: "Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!" (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2): "The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he "bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day" ("Vita," § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes ("B. J." ii. 8, § 5).

...
The real significance of the rite of Baptism can not be derived from the Levitical law; but it appears to have had its origin in Babylonian or ancient Semitic practise. As it was the special service administered by Elisha, as prophetic disciple to Elijah his master, to "pour out water upon his hands" (II Kings iii. 11), so did Elisha tell Naaman to bathe seven times in the Jordan, in order to recover from his leprosy (II Kings v. 10). The powers ascribed to the waters of the Jordan are expressly stated to be that they restore the unclean man to the original state of a new-born "little child." This idea underlies the prophetic hope of the fountain of purity, which is to cleanse Israel from the spirit of impurity (Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; compare Isa. iv. 4). Thus it is expressed in unmistakable terms in the Mandean writings and teachings (Brandt, "Mandäische Religion," pp. 99 et seq., 204 et seq.) that the living water in which man bathes is to cause his regeneration. For this reason does the writer of the fourth of the Sibylline Oracles, lines 160-166, appeal to the heathen world, saying, "Ye miserable mortals, repent; wash in living streams your entire frame with its burden of sin; lift to heaven your hands in prayer for forgiveness and cure yourselves of impiety by fear of God!" This is what John the Baptist preached to the sinners that gathered around him on the Jordan; and herein lies the significance of the bath of every proselyte. He was to be made "a new creature" (Gen. R. xxxix). For the term φωτιςθεῖς (illuminated), compare Philo on Repentance ("De Pœnitentia," i.), "The proselyte comes from darkness to light." It is quite possible that, like the initiates in the Orphic mysteries, the proselytes were, by way of symbolism, suddenly brought from darkness into light. For the rites of immersion, anointing, and the like, which the proselyte has or had to undergo, see Proselyte, Ablution, and Anointing.

...

For the purpose of actual or ritual purification, ablutions or washings form an important feature of the Jewish religious ceremonial. Judaism is in thorough accord with the proverb, "Cleanliness is next to godliness" (see Mishnah, Soṭah, ix. 15): indeed, it goes further; for it holds practically that cleanliness is godliness itself. There are three kinds of Ablution recognized in Biblical and rabbinical law: (1) Washing of the hands, (2) washing of the hands and feet, and (3) immersion of the whole body in water.

...

As a means of soothing the skin in the fierce heat of the Palestinian climate, oil seems to have been applied to the exposed parts of the body, especially to the face (Ps. civ. 15); that this was a part of the daily toilet may be inferred from Matt. vi. 17. The practise is older than David, and runs throughout the Old Testament (see Deut. xxviii. 40; Ruth, iii. 3; II Sam. xii. 20, xiv. 2; II Chron. xxviii. 15; Ezek. xvi. 9; Micah, vi. 15; Dan. x. 3). Anointing accompanied a bath (Ruth, iii. 3; II Sam. xii. 20; Ezek. xvi. 9; Susanna, 17); it was a part of the toilet for a feast (Eccl. ix. 8, Ps. xxiii. 5) [in which a different term is poetically used] (Amos, vi. 6). Hence, it was omitted in mourning as a sign of grief (II Sam. xiv. 2, Dan. x. 3), and resumed to indicate that mourning was over (II Sam. xii. 20; Judith, x. 3).

I already gave you tons of proof that you refuse to admit.

Daniel Marsh · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge

1

Daniel Marsh · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
Its God's Baptism, not Catholic alone. It is God who is speaking, not the Pope or the Apostles.

Exodus 29:21 Then take some of the blood from the altar. Mix it with the special oil and sprinkle it on Aaron and his clothes. And sprinkle it on his sons and their clothes. This will show that Aaron and his sons serve me in a special way. And it will show that their clothes are used only at special times.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 4:6 He must put his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the curtain of the Most Holy Place.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 4:17 He must put his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times in front of the curtain before the Lord.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 5:9 The priest will sprinkle the blood from the sin offering on the side of the altar. Then he will pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 6:27 Touching the meat of the sin offering makes a person or a thing holy. “If any of the sprinkled blood falls on a person’s clothes, you must wash the clothes in a holy place.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 7:2 A priest must kill the guilt offering in the same place where they kill the burnt offerings. Then he must sprinkle the blood from the guilt offering around the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 7:14 Offer one each of these different kinds of bread as a gift to the Lord. Then it will belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the fellowship offerings.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 8:10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and sprinkled it on the Holy Tent and on everything in it. In this way he made them holy.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 8:11 He sprinkled some of the anointing oil on the altar seven times. He sprinkled the oil on the altar, on all its tools and dishes, and on the bowl and its base. In this way he made them holy.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 8:19 Then Moses killed the ram. He sprinkled the blood around on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 8:24 Then Moses brought Aaron’s sons close to the altar. He put some of the blood on the tip of their right ears, on the thumb of their right hands, and on the big toe of their right feet. Then he sprinkled the blood around on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 8:30 Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood that was on the altar. He sprinkled some on Aaron and on Aaron’s clothes. He sprinkled some on Aaron’s sons who were with Aaron and on their clothes. In this way Moses made Aaron, his clothes, his sons, and his sons’ clothes holy.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 9:12 Next, Aaron killed the animal for the burnt offering. His sons brought the blood to him, and he sprinkled the blood around on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 9:18 Aaron also killed the bull and the ram that were the fellowship offerings from the people. His sons brought the blood to him, and he sprinkled this blood around on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 14:7 He must sprinkle the blood seven times on those who had the skin disease. Then he must announce that they are clean. After that the priest must go to an open field and let the living bird go free.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 14:16 Then the priest will dip the finger of his right hand into the oil that is in his left palm. He will use his finger to sprinkle some of the oil seven times before the Lord.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 14:27 He will use the finger of his right hand to sprinkle some of the oil that is in his left palm seven times before the Lord.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 14:51 Then he will take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the piece of red cloth, and the living bird and dip them in the blood of the bird that was killed over running water. Then he will sprinkle that blood on the house seven times.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 16:14 Aaron will dip his finger into the bull’s blood and sprinkle it on the front of the Holy Box. Then he will sprinkle the blood seven times onto the front of the mercy-cover.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 16:15 “Then Aaron will kill the goat of the sin offering for the people. He will bring this goat’s blood into the room behind the curtain. He will do with the goat’s blood as he did with the bull’s blood. He will sprinkle the goat’s blood on the mercy-cover and in front of it.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Leviticus 16:19 Then he will dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it on the altar seven times. In this way Aaron will make the altar holy and clean from all the sins of the Israelites.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 8:7 This is what you should do to make them clean: Sprinkle the special water from the sin offering on them. This water will make them clean. Then they must shave their bodies and wash their clothes. This will make their bodies clean.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 18:17 “But you must not make a payment for the firstborn cow, sheep, or goat. These animals are holy. Sprinkle their blood on the altar and burn their fat as a sweet-smelling gift to the Lord.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 19:4 Then Eleazar the priest must put some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle some of the blood toward the Holy Tent. He must do this seven times.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 19:18 That clean person must take a hyssop branch and dip it into the water. The clean person must sprinkle it over the tent, the dishes, and any people who were in the tent. That clean person must do this for anyone who touches a dead body, its bones, or even a grave.

Numbers 19:19 “Then that clean person must sprinkle this water on you on the third day and again on the seventh day. On the seventh day you will become clean. You must wash your clothes in water and you will become clean in the evening.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 19:20 “Whoever becomes unclean and does not become clean must be separated from the community. If an unclean person is not sprinkled with that special water and does not become clean, that person might make the Lord’s Holy Tent unclean.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Numbers 19:21 This rule will be for you forever. And whoever sprinkled the special water must wash their clothes because they will be unclean until evening.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Kings 16:13 Ahaz burned his burnt offerings and grain offerings on it. He poured his drink offering and sprinkled the blood of his fellowship offerings on this altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Kings 16:15 He commanded Uriah the priest, “Use the large altar to burn the morning burnt offerings, the evening grain offerings, and the drink offerings from all the people of this country. Sprinkle all the blood from the burnt offering and other sacrifices on the large altar. But I will use the bronze altar to get answers from God.”
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Chronicles 29:22 So the priests killed the bulls and kept the blood. Then they sprinkled the bulls’ blood on the altar. Then they killed the rams and sprinkled the rams’ blood on the altar. Then they killed the lambs and sprinkled the lambs’ blood on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Chronicles 30:16 They took their regular places in the Temple as described in the Law of Moses, the man of God. The Levites gave the blood to the priests. Then the priests sprinkled the blood on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Chronicles 34:4 As Josiah watched, the people broke down the altars for the Baal gods. Then he cut down the incense altars that stood high above the people. He broke the idols that were carved and the idols that were made from molds. He beat the idols into powder and sprinkled the powder on the graves of the people who had offered sacrifices to the Baal gods.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2 Chronicles 35:11 The Passover lambs were killed. Then the Levites skinned the animals and gave the blood to the priests. The priests sprinkled the blood on the altar.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Job 18:15 Nothing will be left in their tents, which will be sprinkled with burning sulfur.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Ezekiel 36:25 Then I will sprinkle pure water on you and make you pure. I will wash away all your filth, the filth from those nasty idols, and I will make you pure.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Ezekiel 43:18 Then the man said to me, “Son of man, this is what the Lord God says: ‘These are the rules for the altar: At the time you build the altar, use these rules to offer burnt offerings and to sprinkle blood on it.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Ezekiel 43:24 Then you will offer them before the Lord. The priests will sprinkle salt on them. Then they will offer the bull and ram up as a burnt offering to the Lord.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hosea 7:9 Strangers destroy Ephraim’s strength, but Ephraim does not know it. Gray hairs are also sprinkled on Ephraim, but Ephraim does not know it.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 9:13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a cow were sprinkled on those who were no longer pure enough to enter the place of worship. The blood and ashes made them pure again—but only their bodies.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 9:19 First, Moses told the people every command in the law. Then he took the blood of young bulls and mixed it with water. He used red wool and a branch of hyssop to sprinkle the blood and water on the book of the law and on all the people.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 9:21 In the same way, Moses sprinkled the blood on the Holy Tent. He sprinkled the blood over everything used in worship.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 10:22Sprinkled with the blood of Christ, our hearts have been made free from a guilty conscience, and our bodies have been washed with pure water. So come near to God with a sincere heart, full of confidence because of our faith in Christ.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Hebrews 12:24 You have come to Jesus—the one who brought the new agreement from God to his people. You have come to the sprinkled blood that tells us about better things than the blood of Abel.

2

Daniel Marsh · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
Ezekiel 36 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Land of Israel Will Be Rebuilt
36 “Son of man,[a] speak to the mountains of Israel for me. Tell them to listen to the word of the Lord! 2 Tell them that this is what the Lord God says: ‘The enemy said bad things against you. They said, Hurray! Now the ancient mountains will be ours!’

3 “So speak to the mountains of Israel for me. Tell them that this is what the Lord God says: ‘The enemy destroyed your cities and attacked you from every direction. They did this so that you would belong to the other nations. Then people talked and whispered about you.’”

4 So, mountains of Israel, listen to the word of the Lord God! This is what the Lord God says to the mountains, hills, streams, valleys, empty ruins, and abandoned cities that have been looted and laughed at by the other nations around them. 5 The Lord God says, “I swear, I will let my strong feelings speak for me! I will let Edom and the other nations feel my anger. They took my land for themselves. They really had a good time when they showed how much they hated this land. They took the land for themselves, just so they could destroy it.”

6 “So say these things about the land of Israel. Speak to the mountains and to the hills, to the streams, and to the valleys. Tell them that this is what the Lord God says: ‘I will let my strong feelings and anger speak for me, because you had to suffer the insults from those nations.’”

7 So this is what the Lord God says: “I am the one making this promise! I swear that the nations around you will have to suffer for those insults.

8 “But mountains of Israel, you will grow new trees and produce fruit for my people Israel. My people will soon come back. 9 I am with you, and I will help you. People will till your soil and plant seeds in you. 10 There will be many people living on you. The whole family of Israel—all of them—will live there. The cities will have people living in them. The destroyed places will be rebuilt. 11 I will give you many people and animals, and they will grow and have many children. I will bring people to live on you as in the past. I will make it better for you than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 12 Yes, I will lead many people—my people, Israel—to your land. You will be their property, and you will not take away their children again.”

13 This is what the Lord God says: “Land of Israel, people say bad things to you. They say you destroyed your people. They say you took the children away from your people. 14 But you will not destroy people anymore or take away their children again.” This is what the Lord God said. 15 “I will not let those other nations insult you anymore. You will not be hurt by them anymore. You will not take the children away from your people again.” This is what the Lord God said.

The Lord Will Protect His Name
16 Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, 17 “Son of man, the family of Israel lived in their own country, but they made that land filthy by the bad things they did. To me, they were like a woman who becomes unclean because of her monthly time of bleeding. 18 They spilled blood on the ground when they murdered people in the land. They made the land filthy with their idols, so I showed them how angry I was. 19 I scattered them among the nations and spread them through all the lands. I gave them the punishment they deserved for the bad things they did. 20 But even in those other nations, they ruined my good name. How? Those nations said, ‘These are the Lord’s people, but they left his land.’

21 “The people of Israel ruined my holy name wherever they went, and I felt sorry for my name. 22 So tell the family of Israel that this is what the Lord God says: ‘Family of Israel, you ruined my holy name in the places where you went. I am going to do something to stop this. I will not do it for your sake, Israel. I will do it for my holy name. 23 I will show the nations how holy my great name really is. You ruined my good name in those nations! But I will show you that I am holy. I will make you respect my name, and then those nations will know that I am the Lord.’” This is what the Lord God said.

24 “I will take you out of those nations, gather you together, and bring you back to your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle pure water on you and make you pure. I will wash away all your filth, the filth from those nasty idols, and I will make you pure. 26 I will also put a new spirit in you to change your way of thinking. I will take out the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender, human heart. 27 I will put my Spirit inside you[c] and change you so that you will obey my laws. You will carefully obey my commands. 28 Then you will live in the land that I gave to your ancestors. You will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 Also, I will save you and keep you from becoming unclean. I will command the grain to grow. I will not bring a famine against you. 30 I will give you large crops of fruit from your trees and the harvest from your fields so that you will never again feel the shame of being hungry in a foreign country. 31 You will remember the bad things you did. You will remember that those things were not good. Then you will hate yourselves because of your sins and the terrible things you did.”

32 The Lord God says, “I want you to remember this: I am not doing these things for your good! I am doing them for my good name. Family of Israel, you should be ashamed and embarrassed about the way you lived!”

33 This is what the Lord God says: “On the day that I wash away your sins, I will bring people back to your cities. The ruined cities will be rebuilt. 34 People will begin again to work the land so when other people pass by they will not see ruins anymore. 35 They will say, ‘In the past, this land was ruined, but now it is like the Garden of Eden. The cities were destroyed. They were ruined and empty, but now they are protected, and there are people living in them.’

36 “Then the nations that are still around you will know I am the Lord and that I rebuilt those places. I planted things in this land that was empty. I am the Lord. I said this, and I will make them happen!”

37 This is what the Lord God says: “I will also let the family of Israel come to me and ask me to do these things for them. I will make them grow and become many people. They will be like flocks of sheep. 38 During the special festivals, Jerusalem was filled with flocks of sheep and goats that had been made holy. In the same way the cities and ruined places will be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

3

Daniel Marsh · Sep 18, 2019

Daniel Marsh said:
First I Cor 15:29 says why did they baptize for the dead. It was one of pagan mystery cults that did that, not Christians.

The Didache did not change the methods of Baptism. In Judaism which predates and the culture the NT was written in --- what is in the Didache was common practices.

Ezekiel 36:25a
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ...

4

LDS Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Wh

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads