God’s plan for us is simple to understand, but it takes a lifetime to follow. Following the plan of happiness is easier when we do the simple things, like reading the scriptures, going to church, praying, and serving others. Jesus Christ was the perfect example in following God's plan. It takes faith and works for us to be like Jesus, but it is worth it now and will be in eternity.
OK....but there is nothing saying that you cannot baptize for the dead. It's just a ritual. Rituals are designed to bring people to a spiritual state of mind and to bring a cohesiveness between the members. It's just a ritual....so what?
@johnny102marvin Don't you understand? You're participating in a pagan ritual, Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. A person cannot be saved through rituals. If it were possible, that would mean that a person could save himself through his own actions. That would mean that Jesus did not have to die on the cross, because there would be another way to be saved.
You are so quick to quote Bible verses, what about writings from the Salamander Letter? Christianity and Mormonism is an oxymoron. Both are cults, but Mormonism is a cult within a cult.
Go back and read vs. 12-14, it is clear that the "dead" he is referring to is Christ, Who some were claiming had not risen from the dead. Paul's is writing in this chapter is to deal with this false teaching. He is telling them that if Christ isn't risen, then all those who have already died will never be resurrected and that their faith is in vain. Fortunately, Christ did rise. If Paul doesn't specify who the dead are (as you say), why does the LDS build a doctrine on such an obscure verse?
@crownofthorns99 MONEY!!!!!!! Baptism for the dead is only done in Mormon temples, not in their regular churches. Thus, we need more temples, we need more land, and we need more MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This passage really isn't that hard to understand. This group of Christians in Corinth was not baptizing for people who had already died without Christ. If you read the entire chapter in context, you see that this group did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, yet they were still baptizing in the name of Christ The point Paul is making is this... If you Corinthians don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, why are you baptizing in the name of an un-risen savior?
@crownofthorns99: You're alot of assumptions that are not supported by the text. 1st, St. Paul doesn't specify about who is being baptised, nor who the dead are here. It could be anyone getting baptised & it could be any or all dead for whom they are being baptised. I don't see how your interpretation is contextual at all.
I would like to invite all viewers of this video, Mormon or non-mormon, to learn a little about Church history. If we undertand what the life of the early history of the Church was like, we will have less difficulty understanding what the Bible is talking about. Jesus sent his Apostles out to spread His Gospel to all the Earth. If they failed to preserve their teachings by training up faithful men to continue after them then they & thus Christ failed. Learn about Patristics. It is the only way.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Read the verse again. It says "IN THAT DAY..." There is only one death mentioned here. As for David, it says that his mother conceived him in sin. It is just too absurd to say that those who have committed no sin are guilty of sin. What kind of God would hold the objectively innocent guilty? Original sin merely means that our original parents lost the grace they had in their creation. Those lacking grace, they had none to pass on to their children. Sin is a deficit.
@TheSixStringRevolver: "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." He promised that they would die in day they eat of it. They did not die that day, physically. It was their soul that died. It doesn't say that they will become vulnerable to death. The word vulnerable is not there & nothing like it is there. This is precisely what is meant by eisegesis.
Purgatory has to do w/ sin. You can't undestand Purgatory properly w/o a proper understanding of sin.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Hundreds of years later. They did not die in the day thety ate of it. Not their bodies. Go read Gen. 2:17. They did not die that day.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Did Jesus die? But it is the soul of the sinner which dies. His body lives on. Adam & Ever were told by God that when they ate of the fruit, they would die. The snake said they wouldn't die. They ate, did they die? Was God or the snake right? What kind of death is under discussion here? Christ's body died, His soul did not. He was williing to lay down His bodlly life for His & our spiritual life.
@TheSixStringRevolver: It is Jesus & the Bible which likens sin to a disease. It is not something that is intrinsic to us. It is something we acquire. We are weak & vulnerable to it. But, being vulnerable to a sin is not the act of sinning. Only those who have committed actual sins are guilty of sin. Since the sin of Adam, we are born w/o the grace of God. Thus we lack the immunity to the influence of sin. Thus we easily fall into sin. & you said that it is sin which keeps us from God.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Now I can get back to you after they are done working on this site. A dog is born a dog, he is not born a mad dog. He needs to catch rabies to become a mad dog. He has a natural tendency to catch rabies as he is a mammal, & rabies is a mammalian disease. Fish & lizards don't get it. They don't have a rabies nature. As for babies not needing Christ, you seem to think that Adam had a right to got Heaven before the fall. No one has right to Heaven sin or no sin.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Sin is NOT in DNA. Dogs have DNA also. & greed is not a sin. Stealing & cheating are sins, born of greed. Being an alcoholic is not being drunk. Being an alcoholic makes you want to get drunk. Drunkness is a sin, alcoholism is not. Original sin is not something we have, it is a kind of lacking, like being born w/o a limb. We are born w/o God's grace. Thus our appetites are disordered, like in alcoholism. We want what we should not. temptation is not sin.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Those who have not sinned are, by definition, w/o sin. A virgin is not a whore. She might become a whore. All whores were once virgins. As no woman becomes a whore until after she loses her virginity, or in the act of losing it perhaps; no one is a sinner until they have committed a sin. Do babies go to Hell for their sins? By your logic they should. Luther also had some very basic logical consistancy problems.
@TheSixStringRevolver: Now you admit he expunged! Well, then he is a corruptor of scriptures. How can you follow such a man? Maccabees has the value of teaching the truth about Purgatory & praying for the dead. It is shame you have lost that piece of the true Christian faith. The Maccabees were in the Septuagint canon, thus the rabbis who wrote it accepted their authenticity. That is good provinance. Original sin is NOT guilt of sin. It is a tendency towards sin. Babies & dogs are innocent.
@TheSixStringRevolver: You have confused basic logical catagories. Sinlessness & a "perfect" soul are not the same thing. A new born babe has no sin. He is hardly holy. A dog for that matter is also sinless. He isn't a a perfect soul either.
A Sola Scriptura advocate can not reject a book on doctrinal grounds. You must 1st have scripture & take your doctrines from it. The Apostles gave the Maccabees as scripture. The Church universally accepted them, Luther expunged them to suit his error.
So you have given two contradictory possible meanings of this scripture. Perhaps there is a third meaning, that it is a true doctrine and has been restored to the earth as part of the restored gospel.
@2morrowman: Perhaps the real historic meaning handed down by Christ's actual Apostles (not the fake one from the 19th cent.) has always existed & has no need of being restored. After all, don't think Christ is a liar. When He said he would "lead us into all truth," He didn't mean He'd lead us into some truths 1st, & then some errors, & then (after almost 2,000yrs of unforgivable neglect) He will start teaching us the truth again. I say Jesus suceeded through His Apostles, you say he failed.
Victor. You are not even discussing the video mention but going off on some tangeant. The fact is that Shawn has given us two possible meanings which both can't be right thus indicating he doesn't really know what the correct interpretation is. But here are two possible answers folks that would make the LDS belief wrong. Take your pick. Not very convincing in my book.
@2morrowman: I am explaining to you the real historic meaning of this verse. A clear tradition was handed down from the time of the real Apostles. No new one needed inventing in the 19th cent. I am just asking you to learn a little real history. We know what the Church has taught from the time of the Apostles forward. No "restoration" was needed, the restoration theory makes Jesus into a liar, it is that simple. If people knew the Church's Tradition, making up stuff wouldn't be needed.
You are guessing I think. Paul was teaching the reality of the resurrection and throughout the wholed chapter he is citing events that have happened that verify to the reality of the resurrection. And in verse 29 he also cites by way of valid reasoning why would baptism for the dead be practised if the dead rise not at all. Baptism for the dead was practised by early Christian churches and was eventually outlawed by the Catholic church.
@2morrowman: I see. If this were so, you should be able to name the Pope, the year, & any Church documents or councils in through which this was done. Please name?
1 Cor. 15:29-34: That is the full context for this fragment you distort. After the "baptisms for the dead" line, Paul then talks about his being in peril & his dying to the flesh every day. This has to do w/ mortifications of the flesh to win merit for the souls in Purgatory. Paul also talks about being torn by beasts.
(pardon my multi-posting but it is a complex passage) The "torn by beasts" passage is a restatement of the "baptism" passage. He is talking about the Roman execution by being "thrown to the lions." Finally, Paul quotes the Stoic philosophers who denied eternal life. "Eat, drink, & be merry." The parallelism between v.29 & v.32 makes the meaning of both clear.
May I suggest that you look up the topic Baptism for the dead either by Jeff Lindsay or Hugh Nibley. Both are very interesting and cite ancient and modern historians including many who are revered and respected. They believed that baptism for the dead was an early Christian practise.
Shawn has his theories, you have yours and I have mine. Shouldn't we be grateful that God continues to talk to us today through living prophets rather then tell God we don't want to listen?
@2morrowman: Why would we be grateful for that? God might speak subjectively to each of our hearts, but there is no more general revelation. Why would their be? Christ, the fullness of God's revelation has already come. Is Christ to small & weak for you that you require more then Him? Does Jesus need a J. Smith, or Hinkley or a Monson to finish a task He was not up to? & who are Lindsay or Nibley, that I should care what they think? Have you anything to say about what Corinthians actually says?
Perhaps we are perfect and don't need God any more?
Perhaps He does not love us any more?
Perhaps God has lost His Power?
Perhaps all the words of Christ which if they were all written would be enough to fill libraries, perhaps those that man managed to get into a book called the bible are enough?
Wrong to all the above. God loves us, we are not perfect, we need Him now more than ever.
@2morrowman: But it is too late. I must go to bed. Baptism for the dead was not a practice of the Church but a practice that was practiced on the Church. It was martyrdom. Death in the arena was called a "bath." As I told you. Again, read the context for yourself.
Paul spent the whole chapter validating his claims of the resurection and he would not use a pagan practise to prove his point.
Incidently I think you well know who Hugh Nibley and Jeff Lindsay are, If you really wanted to understand the LDS doctrine you would research properly. Don't tell me you only read the bible cos Shawn has already proved there are more than one interpretation. I found a site on the net that offers four differing opinions on that verse so go figure.
@2morrowman: Why would I consult Mormon apologists about the Bible? Mormons don't even believe in the real Bible. They believe in an imaginary Bible that needs to be translated "correctly" by some magic they never bother explaining to anyone. We are talking about the text of the actual Bible, of real history. It was written by men who believed in purgatory & the value of redemptive suffering. When we suffer even as martyrs, it wins merit for the souls in Purgatory.
Victor. When we suffer etc etc. Do you really believe that?
I believe that only Christ suffered for our sins. Only He brought about the redemption. His atoning sacrifice was enough for all and no suffering of ours will help a soul in Purgatory.
@2morrowman: Once again, read your Bible & don't rely on your feeling & subjective speculations. Jesus says, "Take up your cross & follow me." Paul says, "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions (Col. 1:240)." You can believe whatever tickles your ears to hear. It is better to follow wha the Bibl actually teaches. I have long thought Mormonism is the reductio ad absurdum of Protestantism. Thanx for proving it by agreing w/ rpavich.
The one text is here that's being cited...it's not a Christian practice.
If later people did and believed things that are not Orthodox and called themselves Christians...I can't help that ...Mormons do that today but that doesn't make them Christian.
Right. Being an ex member you only look at anti mormon literature don't you?
The fact is that they go to the original sources and not some book they read on the subject where as you and I mostly read what we find on the internet.
I have read the anti stuff and so have you. But I have also read their side of the story which you refuse to look at so who is the biased one?
No it wasn't. Just because a group practiced an aberrant ritual, doesn't make them Christian and the bible writers fought this kind of thing all of the time.
Just like LDS want to be called Christian today....but yet don't believe what Orthodox Christianity teaches....same thing.
Again your own interpretation of the scripture. They are at least four differing interpretations of this scripture avaiable on the net. Which one will you believe? They are all written by bible scholars and are all acceptable depending which view you want to take. But they are different and so can't all be right. So it is equally possible using bible scholars logic that the LDS view is correct. As I said before I thank God for continuing revelation in our day.
I'm assuming that when you say that "it " allows for a changing world, then you mean that the bible cannot speak to a person in any age besides the time it was written, but having a Prophet does...
Well...2000 years of Christians would disagree with you....lol...
Just because you only give lip service to the bible and cannot understand it...doesn't mean that everyone is in that position....
@2morrowman: The Bible grew in meaning as new books were added until the coming of Christ. That is the fullness of revelation. The ETERNAL God, incarnate. reversing course does help a ship to advance. Your earlier & later prophets merely contradict each other, the do not advance or clarify each other. A ship that leaves port & then returns makes no progress. God is not the author of confusion, & contradiction IS confusion. Jesus Himself said not 1 jot or tittle of the Bible would pass.
These verses are difficult to understand without reading the whole context. Just another place where Joseph and Sidney twisted the meaning of the verse.
Not all Mormons get "baptised for the dead." There are those who'd never get a "temple recommend." People need to get an accurate understanding real Church history. This passage, read in context, has to do w/ Purgatory. Historically, the Church has taught that our sufferings here propiate for the damage sin does to our souls. We are perfected by fire as we pass from life to death. The suffering of the imperfectly righteous dead is alleviated by our offering our suffering for them.
If we are justified in God's sight...then why again to we need to be "purged" of sin?
That's the problem...you can play with words...but the bottom line in Purgatory is: you must do something to finally be glorified...Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough.
"Then why again to we need to be "purged" of sin". Is heaven heaven if people are sinning there? Even you Protestant's believe that God sanctifies the person instantaneously after death. We just spread out that sanctification through time. A good question is: if God sanctifies us throughout time on earth, why does He change His strategy and sanctify instantaneously at death?
Are you asking why did God choose to sanctify us after He justified us?
Technically, He could have just justified us and then let us stay sinners, but He chose not to do that. He chose to both justify us with the finished work of Christ, and then sanctify us through our repentance.
Listen, you can believe in Purgatory and in Sola Fide. All you have to do is realize (according to Sola Fide) that you are justified through faith alone, and sanctified by repentence (in this life and in Purgatory).
@rpavich: Then you are calling God a liar. If their is no purgatory, then why does the Bible tell us that some after death will be purged by fire? If there is no firey PURGATORY, how can there be a firey PURGATION? Besides, the Bible says we should pray for the dead. There would be no point praying for the dead if they could not benefti from those prayers. There must be a place for the dead where prayers can do them good.
@rpavich: We are not talking about taking away any sin. We are talking about the perfecting the soul, for no impure thing can see God & seeing God is what is meant by Heaven. Perhaps the judgement after death might be that you should spend some time in Purgatory. Again, I Cor. 3:12-15 says were are saved after death by fire. Prayers for the dead is recommended in 2 Macc. 12:38-46. Look it up, it SHOULD be in your Bible. I am explaining the historical meaning of "baptisms for the dead."
@rpavich: I have quoted the verses of the Bible that prove the doctrine of Purgatory. 1Cor. 3:10-15 clearly states we experience a firey purgation after death. If there is a firey purgation then a place purgation must be. Read your Bible rather then rely on the mere human traditions of Protestantism. Maccabees was part of that canon of scriptures handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. The mere man Luther invented the human tradition of expunging it from Prot. Bibles.
@rpavich: My verses prove as much as any verse quoting proves anything. Did you even look at the passages I quoted for you? I doubt it. You don't follow the Bible, you can't, you have no idea where it came from or the intention of its authors. You have your own man made religious tradition. You read that into your Bible, or rather the isolated passages you set up as idols, & call this thing you impose on the Bible your "Biblical" faith. & go read what Luther actually said about expunging them.
@rpavich: I provided plenty of exegesis. Certainly as much as the limited format of these comment threads will allow. The problem is you don't understand what Purgatory really is. You don't know the history that supports it, both in Jewish & early Christian sources. You never have had the multiple Bible verses that support pointed out to you. You have an abbreviated Reformation Bible that has an important part of the Bible evidence removed. Thus you don't have the background to understand.
@rpavich: For the benefit of the general readership. Exegesis is the opposite of what Luther did in adding the word "alone" to the word "faith" in Rom. 3:28. What Luther did is called EISEGESIS. That's reading into the Bible rather reading your doctrines out of the Bible. B/c he believed we couldn't be truly be transformed by the grace of God, but only had righteousness imputed to us; he couldn't accept prayers for the dead. Thus he expunged the Deuterocanonical books also.
Sorry, your diatribe against Luther is not the definition of Exegesis; which might be why you think that you actually exegeted anything when you proof texted your passages.
@rpavich: You are not my school teacher. I have no obligation to answer pompous question from you. I have given you exegesis. To quote you, all I get from you is "rhetoric" about exegesis. Look @ the actual text of Corinthians & show me where I am wrong?
Sadly, I asked you repeatedly to define exegesis because it's clear that you think just citing passages and asserting what they mean is "doing exegesis" so I tried to clear that up.
You've chosen to be proud and rude instead.
the next time you'd like someone to take your assertions seriously, have them supported by consistent, coherent exegesis.
@rpavich: I gave you a systematic analysis of the text. That you prefer to cling to your illusions is all too obvious. I gave you the context of the passage I analized the word construction for you. Showed how their parallelism demonstrated their common meaning & reference. I compare the passage to related ideas @ introduction to the epistle. I gave related passages from other books & gave the historical context. I spoon fed you like an infant, & you spit it out.
(cont.) & you have yet to discuss even one verse of scripture. Vacuous attitudinizing & posturing is not thinking or proving anything except your own ignorance.
@rpavich: & once again it is proven, you only talk about exegesis, you do not practice it. The only person here who has made any attempt textual analysis is me. I have quoted all the scriptures, you have not quote even one. All you have to do is show where my analysis is defective & present your own. Thus it is demonstrate that I have won this debate by default.
@rpavich: Hey brother, No one wants to win by default. What kind of a challenge is that. I have had many edifying, constructive discussions w/ respectfull people on the internet. & many others like yourself. Some people just like to pose & hurl personal abuse. As I've said all along; if you think you have a better exegesis of this epistle, all you have to do is POST IT FOR ALL TO SEE. Don't talk about exegesis, ACTUALLY DO IT!
this man twist the bible to fit his own ego. he liks to hear him self
eskimosoldier99 1 month ago
God’s plan for us is simple to understand, but it takes a lifetime to follow. Following the plan of happiness is easier when we do the simple things, like reading the scriptures, going to church, praying, and serving others. Jesus Christ was the perfect example in following God's plan. It takes faith and works for us to be like Jesus, but it is worth it now and will be in eternity.
gemmalizbeth1 4 months ago
I was baptised on behalf of my dead great grandmother. It was plain weird.
screamingmustard 6 months ago
OK....but there is nothing saying that you cannot baptize for the dead. It's just a ritual. Rituals are designed to bring people to a spiritual state of mind and to bring a cohesiveness between the members. It's just a ritual....so what?
johnny102marvin 11 months ago
@johnny102marvin Don't you understand? You're participating in a pagan ritual, Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. A person cannot be saved through rituals. If it were possible, that would mean that a person could save himself through his own actions. That would mean that Jesus did not have to die on the cross, because there would be another way to be saved.
birthbysleep 10 months ago
You are so quick to quote Bible verses, what about writings from the Salamander Letter? Christianity and Mormonism is an oxymoron. Both are cults, but Mormonism is a cult within a cult.
tahoemack 1 year ago
Go back and read vs. 12-14, it is clear that the "dead" he is referring to is Christ, Who some were claiming had not risen from the dead. Paul's is writing in this chapter is to deal with this false teaching. He is telling them that if Christ isn't risen, then all those who have already died will never be resurrected and that their faith is in vain. Fortunately, Christ did rise. If Paul doesn't specify who the dead are (as you say), why does the LDS build a doctrine on such an obscure verse?
crownofthorns99 1 year ago
@crownofthorns99 MONEY!!!!!!! Baptism for the dead is only done in Mormon temples, not in their regular churches. Thus, we need more temples, we need more land, and we need more MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
r8rfanizme 8 months ago
This passage really isn't that hard to understand. This group of Christians in Corinth was not baptizing for people who had already died without Christ. If you read the entire chapter in context, you see that this group did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, yet they were still baptizing in the name of Christ The point Paul is making is this... If you Corinthians don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, why are you baptizing in the name of an un-risen savior?
crownofthorns99 1 year ago
@crownofthorns99: You're alot of assumptions that are not supported by the text. 1st, St. Paul doesn't specify about who is being baptised, nor who the dead are here. It could be anyone getting baptised & it could be any or all dead for whom they are being baptised. I don't see how your interpretation is contextual at all.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
I would like to invite all viewers of this video, Mormon or non-mormon, to learn a little about Church history. If we undertand what the life of the early history of the Church was like, we will have less difficulty understanding what the Bible is talking about. Jesus sent his Apostles out to spread His Gospel to all the Earth. If they failed to preserve their teachings by training up faithful men to continue after them then they & thus Christ failed. Learn about Patristics. It is the only way.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Read the verse again. It says "IN THAT DAY..." There is only one death mentioned here. As for David, it says that his mother conceived him in sin. It is just too absurd to say that those who have committed no sin are guilty of sin. What kind of God would hold the objectively innocent guilty? Original sin merely means that our original parents lost the grace they had in their creation. Those lacking grace, they had none to pass on to their children. Sin is a deficit.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." He promised that they would die in day they eat of it. They did not die that day, physically. It was their soul that died. It doesn't say that they will become vulnerable to death. The word vulnerable is not there & nothing like it is there. This is precisely what is meant by eisegesis.
Purgatory has to do w/ sin. You can't undestand Purgatory properly w/o a proper understanding of sin.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Hundreds of years later. They did not die in the day thety ate of it. Not their bodies. Go read Gen. 2:17. They did not die that day.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Did Jesus die? But it is the soul of the sinner which dies. His body lives on. Adam & Ever were told by God that when they ate of the fruit, they would die. The snake said they wouldn't die. They ate, did they die? Was God or the snake right? What kind of death is under discussion here? Christ's body died, His soul did not. He was williing to lay down His bodlly life for His & our spiritual life.
So I ask you, do babies' souls die?
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: It is Jesus & the Bible which likens sin to a disease. It is not something that is intrinsic to us. It is something we acquire. We are weak & vulnerable to it. But, being vulnerable to a sin is not the act of sinning. Only those who have committed actual sins are guilty of sin. Since the sin of Adam, we are born w/o the grace of God. Thus we lack the immunity to the influence of sin. Thus we easily fall into sin. & you said that it is sin which keeps us from God.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Now I can get back to you after they are done working on this site. A dog is born a dog, he is not born a mad dog. He needs to catch rabies to become a mad dog. He has a natural tendency to catch rabies as he is a mammal, & rabies is a mammalian disease. Fish & lizards don't get it. They don't have a rabies nature. As for babies not needing Christ, you seem to think that Adam had a right to got Heaven before the fall. No one has right to Heaven sin or no sin.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Sin is NOT in DNA. Dogs have DNA also. & greed is not a sin. Stealing & cheating are sins, born of greed. Being an alcoholic is not being drunk. Being an alcoholic makes you want to get drunk. Drunkness is a sin, alcoholism is not. Original sin is not something we have, it is a kind of lacking, like being born w/o a limb. We are born w/o God's grace. Thus our appetites are disordered, like in alcoholism. We want what we should not. temptation is not sin.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Those who have not sinned are, by definition, w/o sin. A virgin is not a whore. She might become a whore. All whores were once virgins. As no woman becomes a whore until after she loses her virginity, or in the act of losing it perhaps; no one is a sinner until they have committed a sin. Do babies go to Hell for their sins? By your logic they should. Luther also had some very basic logical consistancy problems.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: Now you admit he expunged! Well, then he is a corruptor of scriptures. How can you follow such a man? Maccabees has the value of teaching the truth about Purgatory & praying for the dead. It is shame you have lost that piece of the true Christian faith. The Maccabees were in the Septuagint canon, thus the rabbis who wrote it accepted their authenticity. That is good provinance. Original sin is NOT guilt of sin. It is a tendency towards sin. Babies & dogs are innocent.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@TheSixStringRevolver: You have confused basic logical catagories. Sinlessness & a "perfect" soul are not the same thing. A new born babe has no sin. He is hardly holy. A dog for that matter is also sinless. He isn't a a perfect soul either.
A Sola Scriptura advocate can not reject a book on doctrinal grounds. You must 1st have scripture & take your doctrines from it. The Apostles gave the Maccabees as scripture. The Church universally accepted them, Luther expunged them to suit his error.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
So you have given two contradictory possible meanings of this scripture. Perhaps there is a third meaning, that it is a true doctrine and has been restored to the earth as part of the restored gospel.
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: Perhaps the real historic meaning handed down by Christ's actual Apostles (not the fake one from the 19th cent.) has always existed & has no need of being restored. After all, don't think Christ is a liar. When He said he would "lead us into all truth," He didn't mean He'd lead us into some truths 1st, & then some errors, & then (after almost 2,000yrs of unforgivable neglect) He will start teaching us the truth again. I say Jesus suceeded through His Apostles, you say he failed.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Victor. You are not even discussing the video mention but going off on some tangeant. The fact is that Shawn has given us two possible meanings which both can't be right thus indicating he doesn't really know what the correct interpretation is. But here are two possible answers folks that would make the LDS belief wrong. Take your pick. Not very convincing in my book.
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: I am explaining to you the real historic meaning of this verse. A clear tradition was handed down from the time of the real Apostles. No new one needed inventing in the 19th cent. I am just asking you to learn a little real history. We know what the Church has taught from the time of the Apostles forward. No "restoration" was needed, the restoration theory makes Jesus into a liar, it is that simple. If people knew the Church's Tradition, making up stuff wouldn't be needed.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
You are guessing I think. Paul was teaching the reality of the resurrection and throughout the wholed chapter he is citing events that have happened that verify to the reality of the resurrection. And in verse 29 he also cites by way of valid reasoning why would baptism for the dead be practised if the dead rise not at all. Baptism for the dead was practised by early Christian churches and was eventually outlawed by the Catholic church.
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: I see. If this were so, you should be able to name the Pope, the year, & any Church documents or councils in through which this was done. Please name?
1 Cor. 15:29-34: That is the full context for this fragment you distort. After the "baptisms for the dead" line, Paul then talks about his being in peril & his dying to the flesh every day. This has to do w/ mortifications of the flesh to win merit for the souls in Purgatory. Paul also talks about being torn by beasts.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
(pardon my multi-posting but it is a complex passage) The "torn by beasts" passage is a restatement of the "baptism" passage. He is talking about the Roman execution by being "thrown to the lions." Finally, Paul quotes the Stoic philosophers who denied eternal life. "Eat, drink, & be merry." The parallelism between v.29 & v.32 makes the meaning of both clear.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
May I suggest that you look up the topic Baptism for the dead either by Jeff Lindsay or Hugh Nibley. Both are very interesting and cite ancient and modern historians including many who are revered and respected. They believed that baptism for the dead was an early Christian practise.
Shawn has his theories, you have yours and I have mine. Shouldn't we be grateful that God continues to talk to us today through living prophets rather then tell God we don't want to listen?
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: Why would we be grateful for that? God might speak subjectively to each of our hearts, but there is no more general revelation. Why would their be? Christ, the fullness of God's revelation has already come. Is Christ to small & weak for you that you require more then Him? Does Jesus need a J. Smith, or Hinkley or a Monson to finish a task He was not up to? & who are Lindsay or Nibley, that I should care what they think? Have you anything to say about what Corinthians actually says?
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Victor. Why would there be no more revelation?
Perhaps we are perfect and don't need God any more?
Perhaps He does not love us any more?
Perhaps God has lost His Power?
Perhaps all the words of Christ which if they were all written would be enough to fill libraries, perhaps those that man managed to get into a book called the bible are enough?
Wrong to all the above. God loves us, we are not perfect, we need Him now more than ever.
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: But it is too late. I must go to bed. Baptism for the dead was not a practice of the Church but a practice that was practiced on the Church. It was martyrdom. Death in the arena was called a "bath." As I told you. Again, read the context for yourself.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Paul spent the whole chapter validating his claims of the resurection and he would not use a pagan practise to prove his point.
Incidently I think you well know who Hugh Nibley and Jeff Lindsay are, If you really wanted to understand the LDS doctrine you would research properly. Don't tell me you only read the bible cos Shawn has already proved there are more than one interpretation. I found a site on the net that offers four differing opinions on that verse so go figure.
2morrowman 2 years ago
2MM,
Oh yes he would.
The bible wasn't written in a vacuum...they used all kinds of literary devices and they wrote in a culture just as you do....
We know who Hugh Nibley and Jeff Lindsay are...they don't overthrow the meaning of this passage.
rpavich 2 years ago
@2morrowman: Why would I consult Mormon apologists about the Bible? Mormons don't even believe in the real Bible. They believe in an imaginary Bible that needs to be translated "correctly" by some magic they never bother explaining to anyone. We are talking about the text of the actual Bible, of real history. It was written by men who believed in purgatory & the value of redemptive suffering. When we suffer even as martyrs, it wins merit for the souls in Purgatory.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Victor. When we suffer etc etc. Do you really believe that?
I believe that only Christ suffered for our sins. Only He brought about the redemption. His atoning sacrifice was enough for all and no suffering of ours will help a soul in Purgatory.
2morrowman 2 years ago
@2morrowman: Once again, read your Bible & don't rely on your feeling & subjective speculations. Jesus says, "Take up your cross & follow me." Paul says, "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions (Col. 1:240)." You can believe whatever tickles your ears to hear. It is better to follow wha the Bibl actually teaches. I have long thought Mormonism is the reductio ad absurdum of Protestantism. Thanx for proving it by agreing w/ rpavich.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
2morrrow,
Why would I look up an LDS apologist again?
The one text is here that's being cited...it's not a Christian practice.
If later people did and believed things that are not Orthodox and called themselves Christians...I can't help that ...Mormons do that today but that doesn't make them Christian.
rpavich 2 years ago
Right. Being an ex member you only look at anti mormon literature don't you?
The fact is that they go to the original sources and not some book they read on the subject where as you and I mostly read what we find on the internet.
I have read the anti stuff and so have you. But I have also read their side of the story which you refuse to look at so who is the biased one?
2morrowman 2 years ago
2MM,
I've looked at both sides....I've found that what you call "anti-Mormon" is just fact.
What you call unbiased is as biased as you are.
Long on innuendo and short on substance.
rpavich 2 years ago
2MM,
No it wasn't. Just because a group practiced an aberrant ritual, doesn't make them Christian and the bible writers fought this kind of thing all of the time.
Just like LDS want to be called Christian today....but yet don't believe what Orthodox Christianity teaches....same thing.
rpavich 2 years ago
Again your own interpretation of the scripture. They are at least four differing interpretations of this scripture avaiable on the net. Which one will you believe? They are all written by bible scholars and are all acceptable depending which view you want to take. But they are different and so can't all be right. So it is equally possible using bible scholars logic that the LDS view is correct. As I said before I thank God for continuing revelation in our day.
2morrowman 2 years ago
2MM,
Continuing revelation is great isn't it?
It allows the LDS leadership to erase mistakes of the past easily.
rpavich 2 years ago
It allows for a changing world.
Should we perhaps go out and stone all adulterers or them who don't keep the sabbath day Holy?
2morrowman 2 years ago
2MM,
I'm assuming that when you say that "it " allows for a changing world, then you mean that the bible cannot speak to a person in any age besides the time it was written, but having a Prophet does...
Well...2000 years of Christians would disagree with you....lol...
Just because you only give lip service to the bible and cannot understand it...doesn't mean that everyone is in that position....
rpavich 2 years ago
@2morrowman: The Bible grew in meaning as new books were added until the coming of Christ. That is the fullness of revelation. The ETERNAL God, incarnate. reversing course does help a ship to advance. Your earlier & later prophets merely contradict each other, the do not advance or clarify each other. A ship that leaves port & then returns makes no progress. God is not the author of confusion, & contradiction IS confusion. Jesus Himself said not 1 jot or tittle of the Bible would pass.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
This a very weak explanation and it sounds to me like you are struggling to try and justify your non belief or non acceptance of this doctrine.
2morrowman 2 years ago
These verses are difficult to understand without reading the whole context. Just another place where Joseph and Sidney twisted the meaning of the verse.
awolLDSasap 2 years ago 3
Not all Mormons get "baptised for the dead." There are those who'd never get a "temple recommend." People need to get an accurate understanding real Church history. This passage, read in context, has to do w/ Purgatory. Historically, the Church has taught that our sufferings here propiate for the damage sin does to our souls. We are perfected by fire as we pass from life to death. The suffering of the imperfectly righteous dead is alleviated by our offering our suffering for them.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Victor,
sorry...there is no Purgatory either....
We are bought and paid for the the blood of Christ...no suffering to fix things, no changing that...
sorry
rpavich 2 years ago 3
Ha, I take it you don't understand Purgatory. Purgatory doesn't produce justification, but sanctification.
Glorthac 2 years ago
Glorthac,
So...let me get this straight....
If we are justified in God's sight...then why again to we need to be "purged" of sin?
That's the problem...you can play with words...but the bottom line in Purgatory is: you must do something to finally be glorified...Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough.
rpavich 2 years ago
"Then why again to we need to be "purged" of sin". Is heaven heaven if people are sinning there? Even you Protestant's believe that God sanctifies the person instantaneously after death. We just spread out that sanctification through time. A good question is: if God sanctifies us throughout time on earth, why does He change His strategy and sanctify instantaneously at death?
Glorthac 2 years ago
glorthac,
I didn't ask why we need to be purged of sin period, but why after the perfect and finished work of Christ, is it necessary?
rpavich 2 years ago
Are you asking why did God choose to sanctify us after He justified us?
Technically, He could have just justified us and then let us stay sinners, but He chose not to do that. He chose to both justify us with the finished work of Christ, and then sanctify us through our repentance.
Listen, you can believe in Purgatory and in Sola Fide. All you have to do is realize (according to Sola Fide) that you are justified through faith alone, and sanctified by repentence (in this life and in Purgatory).
Glorthac 2 years ago
Glorthac,
I don't believe in purgatory because it's not biblical....sorry.
I do believe in Sola Fide but also in Sola Scriptura....and Purgatory is not there.
rpavich 2 years ago
Eh, I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm just explaining Purgatory. It's good to understand what others believe, right?
Glorthac 2 years ago
@rpavich: Then you are calling God a liar. If their is no purgatory, then why does the Bible tell us that some after death will be purged by fire? If there is no firey PURGATORY, how can there be a firey PURGATION? Besides, the Bible says we should pray for the dead. There would be no point praying for the dead if they could not benefti from those prayers. There must be a place for the dead where prayers can do them good.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
victor,
Please, refrain from the rhetoric ok?
You have to be aware of the mountain of writings on the passage you cite right?
PS: Where does the bible say we should pray for the dead?
The bible says that we die, then we are judged...period.
No "refining" (taking away of more sin...) Jesus did that at the cross...finished...tetestai.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: We are not talking about taking away any sin. We are talking about the perfecting the soul, for no impure thing can see God & seeing God is what is meant by Heaven. Perhaps the judgement after death might be that you should spend some time in Purgatory. Again, I Cor. 3:12-15 says were are saved after death by fire. Prayers for the dead is recommended in 2 Macc. 12:38-46. Look it up, it SHOULD be in your Bible. I am explaining the historical meaning of "baptisms for the dead."
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
VictorL,
There is no purgatory....quit asserting that which you've yet to prove. Using "perhaps" is just a guess....
There is a reason that 2 Macc wasn't accepted by the early church....is this it? It's aberrant teachings.
PS: 2 Macc 38-46 just mentions what these people did...no confirmation nor denial...that's hardly a ringing endorsement for this unbiblical practice.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: I have quoted the verses of the Bible that prove the doctrine of Purgatory. 1Cor. 3:10-15 clearly states we experience a firey purgation after death. If there is a firey purgation then a place purgation must be. Read your Bible rather then rely on the mere human traditions of Protestantism. Maccabees was part of that canon of scriptures handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. The mere man Luther invented the human tradition of expunging it from Prot. Bibles.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@victor,
Quote: "I have quoted verses that prove the doctrine of purgatory"
Lol..no...they didn't "prove" anything.
To "prove" something from the bible; you must show HOW it supports what you believe...not just "proof text" it...
sorry...and PS: it wasn't Luther who dumped Maccabees from the Canon....
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: My verses prove as much as any verse quoting proves anything. Did you even look at the passages I quoted for you? I doubt it. You don't follow the Bible, you can't, you have no idea where it came from or the intention of its authors. You have your own man made religious tradition. You read that into your Bible, or rather the isolated passages you set up as idols, & call this thing you impose on the Bible your "Biblical" faith. & go read what Luther actually said about expunging them.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@victor,
that was my point.
Quoting a verse that we disagree on and not providing some exegesis to support your understanding of it is worthless.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: I provided plenty of exegesis. Certainly as much as the limited format of these comment threads will allow. The problem is you don't understand what Purgatory really is. You don't know the history that supports it, both in Jewish & early Christian sources. You never have had the multiple Bible verses that support pointed out to you. You have an abbreviated Reformation Bible that has an important part of the Bible evidence removed. Thus you don't have the background to understand.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@victor,
Define exegesis.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: For the benefit of the general readership. Exegesis is the opposite of what Luther did in adding the word "alone" to the word "faith" in Rom. 3:28. What Luther did is called EISEGESIS. That's reading into the Bible rather reading your doctrines out of the Bible. B/c he believed we couldn't be truly be transformed by the grace of God, but only had righteousness imputed to us; he couldn't accept prayers for the dead. Thus he expunged the Deuterocanonical books also.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@victor,
Sorry, your diatribe against Luther is not the definition of Exegesis; which might be why you think that you actually exegeted anything when you proof texted your passages.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: You are not my school teacher. I have no obligation to answer pompous question from you. I have given you exegesis. To quote you, all I get from you is "rhetoric" about exegesis. Look @ the actual text of Corinthians & show me where I am wrong?
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@Victor,
No...lol..I'm not your teacher.
Sadly, I asked you repeatedly to define exegesis because it's clear that you think just citing passages and asserting what they mean is "doing exegesis" so I tried to clear that up.
You've chosen to be proud and rude instead.
the next time you'd like someone to take your assertions seriously, have them supported by consistent, coherent exegesis.
I guess we are done.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: I gave you a systematic analysis of the text. That you prefer to cling to your illusions is all too obvious. I gave you the context of the passage I analized the word construction for you. Showed how their parallelism demonstrated their common meaning & reference. I compare the passage to related ideas @ introduction to the epistle. I gave related passages from other books & gave the historical context. I spoon fed you like an infant, & you spit it out.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
(cont.) & you have yet to discuss even one verse of scripture. Vacuous attitudinizing & posturing is not thinking or proving anything except your own ignorance.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
victor,
As i mentioned over and over; incessant yacking and assertions are not exegesis...
we are done/
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: & once again it is proven, you only talk about exegesis, you do not practice it. The only person here who has made any attempt textual analysis is me. I have quoted all the scriptures, you have not quote even one. All you have to do is show where my analysis is defective & present your own. Thus it is demonstrate that I have won this debate by default.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@victor,
Right..you won by default...bravo...
Let me know when you're ready to tackle the text in a consistent exegetical manner...my original and only point.
rpavich 2 years ago
@rpavich: Hey brother, No one wants to win by default. What kind of a challenge is that. I have had many edifying, constructive discussions w/ respectfull people on the internet. & many others like yourself. Some people just like to pose & hurl personal abuse. As I've said all along; if you think you have a better exegesis of this epistle, all you have to do is POST IT FOR ALL TO SEE. Don't talk about exegesis, ACTUALLY DO IT!
VictorLepanto 2 years ago