Adam and Eve

[peace2u2]

God is the Creator and Adam was the first human creature.

How would you describe the relationship between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden?

Scripture states they had a very close personal relationship:

Genesis 3:8, “When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”

 

[Z_Ninja]

This is a common, but very strange belief among Mormons; that somehow Adam and Eve could not have procreated unless they sinned. But God created them, from the beginning, as male and female. Their very natures were created to give life by becoming one with each other.

I have had this conversation with Mormons many times and they always defend Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God as something that God had planned. He gave them two commands, according to the Mormon position. The first was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The second was to be fruitful and multiply. Somehow they believe that they could not be fruitful and multiply if they stayed in the Garden, therefore their choice to disobey God was a good thing. This, of course, means that God was complicit in their sin. He gives two apparent commands, each of which cannot be obeyed if the other is obeyed.

The fact is that we could all have been living in the garden. That is a possibility. The reality is that we are all just as much sinners as Adam and Eve and require a Savior.

I also have had this conversation before. It seems to be a lose/lose situation. disobey one command in order to be able to follow the other command. To me, it comes down to not trusting in God.

 

[SteveVH]

Paul was also obviously baptised post resurrection and ascension, and he was baptised to wash away his sins:

“And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) emphais added

There is only one baptism. It is the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. When we repent and are baptised our sins are washed away, we are born again and walk in the newness of life. We are baptised for the remission of sins so that we can be saved through the blood of Christ which was shed for many for the rimission of sins:

“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:27-28). emphasis added

The Catholic baptism is post apostolic. Peter and the apostles taught the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ

for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:36-38) And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine…(Acts 2:42)

John’s Baptism was not a baptism for the remission of sins. It was a call to repentance. Only Christian Baptism actually removes sin. Jesus was not baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (for obvious reason).

By the way, how do you explain Jesus’ Baptism? Why did John baptize the One who was without sin? What was the purpose?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[mtolympus]

John’s Baptism was not a baptism for the remission of sins. It was a call to repentance.

It was both.

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

Christian Baptism actually removes sin. Jesus was not baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (for obvious reason).

Any scripture reference?

By the way, how do you explain Jesus’ Baptism? Why did John baptize the One who was without sin?

Because Jesus requested that he do so. (Matt 3:13) John was surprised at this request but there is no record that Jesus requested a non-Christian baptism.

What was the purpose?

Jesus was perfect and gave us a perfect example to follow. Jesus explained it this way: “Suffer it to be so now: for thus to becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matt 3:14)

 

[mtolympus]

The Catholic Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ, Himself. Matthew 28: 16-20

After His resurrection, Jesus commanded his followers to go out unto all nations to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. However, Jesus’ disciples were baptizing long before that time. They were baptising at the same time as John the Baptist:

“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized.” (John 3:22-23)

 

[HojaVerde]

Hi everyone!

These threads are very interesting!

I would like to share my opinion about this topic, particularly about baptism. But before that, I have to say that my mother tongue is not English so I’m sorry if I commit mistakes or if I’m not able to explain my ideas properly.

Well, John’s Baptism is not the same that Jesus’ one. The reason can be found here:

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mathew 3:11)

It’s clear that Jesus is more powerful than John, and for that reason Jesus’ baptism is with Spirit and fire and John’s one is with only water.

One could say that this is an interpretation (very reasonable) but the confirmation (or evidence) it’s here:

• 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.*

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:1-7)

By the way, could you provide me with a good English on-line bible to quote? Thank you!

See you!

 

[zaffiroborant]

uppervalleycatholic.com

You can contact them about RCIA and start there. Being so small, they may not have an RCIA group, but the priest or a deacon can always work with you one on one. Then “transfer”, so to speak, to Pittsburgh in December and continue RCIA there.

There are several rites in RCIA, one which brings you into the church as a catechumen. The catechism has this:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Isn’t it considered an honor code violation for and LDS member to change religions at BYU and hasn’t BYU refused to grant degree’s because of similar violations? I wouldn’t trust BYU I think he’s better off getting his degree first.

ETA

I see others have addressed this, I just would like to point out that he is seriously jeopardizing his degree just by the things he’s said on this site. LDS really do not believe in freedom of conscience.

 

[rinnie]

I have a few questions regarding the story of Adam and Eve. For starters, do you view the sin Adam made by partaking of the fobidden fruit a good thing or a bad thing? I’ve been taught in the LDS church that we should thank Adam for what he did because it allowed Adam and Eve to have children and to bring us into the world. Also, do you believe that if Adam had not partaken of the fruit that we would be in paradise right now?

next question, Is it a literal story or a symbolic story? I’ve been taught its a literal story, but i would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Is Adam the Archangel Michael? Again, this is a common teaching in the LDS faith and would like to get your opinion on it.

And last question, are we held responsible for the sin of Adam? A common teaching in the LDS faith is that we are accountable for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.

Well to begin with Adam and Eve were put here on earth of procreate. So no the sin had nothing to do with babies. But the pain of having babies had everything to do with sin.

Its a true story. yes.

When we are baptised we a wiped clean of the sin of Adam and Eve. We are now held accountable only for our own sins. But because of the sins of Adam and Eve we have good and evil in us. It is our own free will to sin or not to. But sin is indeed tempting to us.

No Adam is not Michael. St Michael is an angel. Angels are not human beings.

 

[rinnie]

After His resurrection, Jesus commanded his followers to go out unto all nations to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. However, Jesus’ disciples were baptizing long before that time. They were baptising at the same time as John the Baptist:

“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized.” (John 3:22-23)

Hold on here you just said AFTER his resurrection Jesus commanded his Followers to go out and baptise in the name of the Trinity, Then you said the disciples were baptising long before that. How could that be the same as JTB when for one thing he was dead when Jesus told the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Trinity. And JTB did not baptise in the name of the Trinity.

Again why would Jesus command his Apostles to baptise after his resurrection if they were already doing it?

Why did Peter tell the crowd to repent and be baptised after the death of Jesus if he was already doing it before?? Why did they ask hin how to have eternal life, Should they not have known if as you said the Apostles were already baptising?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t it considered an honor code violation for and LDS member to change religions at BYU and hasn’t BYU refused to grant degree’s because of similar violations? I wouldn’t trust BYU I think he’s better off getting his degree first.

ETA

I see others have addressed this, I just would like to point out that he is seriously jeopardizing his degree just by the things he’s said on this site. LDS really do not believe in freedom of conscience.

I’ve never heard of BYU sleuthing out anonymous internet monikers to determine who needs to be kicked out.

Clear that browser history!

 

[mtolympus]

I would like to share my opinion about this topic, particularly about baptism. But before that, I have to say that my mother tongue is not English so I’m sorry if I commit mistakes or if I’m not able to explain my ideas properly.

You do very well. And you have a very impressive knowledge of the scriptures!

Well, John’s Baptism is not the same that Jesus’ one. The reason can be found here:

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mathew 3:11)

It’s clear that Jesus is more powerful than John, and for that reason Jesus’ baptism is with Spirit and fire and John’s one is with only water.

You are correct. Jesus Christ had a higher priesthood than John the Baptist. Jesus had the priesthood after the order of Melchisedec:

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?” (Heb. 7:11)

Baptism by water (John’s baptism) is not compete without recieving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3-5) (emphisis added)

One could say that this is an interpretation (very reasonable) but the confirmation (or evidence) it’s here:

• 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.*

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:1-7)

Paul was able to confer the Holy Ghost (which he did by the laying on of hands), because apostles were ordained with the higher priesthood by Jesus Christ: When Jesus called his apostles He said to them: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you.” (John 15:16)

A similar incident shows that baptism by water had to be followed by recieving the Holy Ghost by someone with the higher authority. Peter and John traveled from Jerusalem to Samaria (about 50 miles),so that recently baptized members could receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands:

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8: 14-17)

 

[SteveVH]

It was both.

“John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

Repenting for one’s sins is not the same as having one’s sins be washed away by the Holy Spirit and one’s soul infused with eternal life which was lost by Adam and Eve. John’s baptism did not do that. John’s baptism was a sign of turning away from sin; conversion. But this conversion was directed to the one who’s sandals John was not worthy to untie. John came to point people to Jesus and it is only through the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit that we are restored to life.

Any scripture reference?

For what statement? That Christian Baptism actually removes sin or that Jesus was not baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? I will guaranty you that nowhere does Scripture state that Jesus was baptized into his own name. The entire premise is ridiculous.

As for the fact that Christian Baptism washes away sin; “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16).

Because Jesus requested that he do so. (Matt 3:13) John was surprised at this request but there is no record that Jesus requested a non-Christian baptism.

But why did Jesus request that he do so? Do you imagine that this was just some random thought that Jesus had or would you imagine that he asked him for a reason? What was behind Jesus’ request?

Jesus was perfect and gave us a perfect example to follow. Jesus explained it this way: “Suffer it to be so now: for thus to becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matt 3:14)

Yes, Jesus received the Baptism of repentance in order to fulfill all righteousness, even though he had nothing for which to repent. He had no need to have his sins washed away because he had no sin.

 

[TheIrishman]

I’ve never heard of BYU sleuthing out anonymous internet monikers to determine who needs to be kicked out.

Clear that browser history!

I think the school has bigger problems than trolling a catholic forum trying to find students.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think the school has bigger problems than trolling a catholic forum trying to find students.

Of course they do that’s why they have students report on each other.

 

[mtolympus]

Hold on here you just said AFTER his resurrection Jesus commanded his Followers to go out and baptise in the name of the Trinity, Then you said the disciples were baptising long before that. How could that be the same as JTB when for one thing he was dead when Jesus told the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Trinity. And JTB did not baptise in the name of the Trinity.

Again why would Jesus command his Apostles to baptise after his resurrection if they were already doing it?

Why did Peter tell the crowd to repent and be baptised after the death of Jesus if he was already doing it before?? Why did they ask hin how to have eternal life, Should they not have known if as you said the Apostles were already baptising?

I’m not sure why you want me to tell you why things happened. All I can tell you is what actually did happened according to the Bible. As I quoted previously, adding one verse to show the time period:

“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.” (John 3:22-24)

Here is more that shows that Jesus’ disciples were baptising at the same time as John the Baptist:

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples,)” (John 4:1-2)

 

[HojaVerde]

Hi mtolympus!

The quote you have given is quite relevant: Acts 8: 14-17.
And the one I gave previously: Acts 19:1-7.

Because if you compare both, you have the answer:

Quote 1 (Acts 8):

• Some disciples were baptized by the deacon Philip (Acts 8:12). Deacons can’t administer the Holy Spirit by the laying on the hands. We call it Confirmation nowadays!
• Verse 16th says that the baptism administered by Philip was the Jesus’ one. Then, they received the sacrament of Holy Baptism or Christian Baptism.
• Peter and John, as Apostles, administer Confirmation so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. (verses from 14th to 17th).

Quote 2 (Acts 19):

• Some disciples had received John’s baptism (Acts 19, 3). Maybe they were baptized by Apollos (see Acts 8: 24-25), because both things happened in Ephesus.
  -When Paul arrives he asks the disciples if they had received the Holy Spirit (Confirmation) (Acts 9:2). I’m sure Paul thought they had already received the Holy Baptism but not the Confirmation. (This is shown in Acts 9:3)
• Since they hadn’t received the Holy Baptism but the John’s one, then they had to receive it! So there are two different baptisms! (Verse 5)
• Paul explains that John’s Baptism is not the same that the Holy Baptism: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (verse 4).
• Once they received the Holy Baptism, the Sacrament, they were prepared to receive the Confirmation. And not before

Summarizing:

In Acts 8 there wasn’t the need to receive John’s Baptism. And in Acts 9 there was the need to receive Christian Baptism. The necessary baptism for our salvation is the Christian one, then, John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism are different.

I hope you understand what I mean.

See you!

 

[HojaVerde]

I repost, because some verse numbers were incorrect. Sorry.

Hi mtolympus!

The quote you have given is quite relevant: Acts 8: 14-17.
And the one I gave previously: Acts 19:1-7.

Because if you compare both, you have the answer:

Quote 1 (Acts 8):

• Some disciples were baptized by the deacon Philip (Acts 8:12). Deacons can’t administer the Holy Spirit by the laying on the hands. We call it Confirmation nowadays!
• Verse 16th says that the baptism administered by Philip was the Jesus’ one. Then, they received the sacrament of Holy Baptism or Christian Baptism.
• Peter and John, as Apostles, administer Confirmation so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. (verses from 14th to 17th).

Quote 2 (Acts 19):

• Some disciples had received John’s baptism (Acts 19, 3). Maybe they were baptized by Apollos (see Acts 18: 24-25), because both things happened in Ephesus.
  -When Paul arrives he asks the disciples if they had received the Holy Spirit (Confirmation) (Acts 19:2). I’m sure Paul thought they had already received the Holy Baptism but not the Confirmation. (This is shown in Acts 19:3)
• Since they hadn’t received the Holy Baptism but the John’s one, then they had to receive it! So there are two different baptisms! (Verse 5)
• Paul explains that John’s Baptism is not the same that the Holy Baptism: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (verse 4).
• Once they received the Holy Baptism, the Sacrament, they were prepared to receive the Confirmation. And not before

Summarizing:

In Acts 8 there wasn’t the need to receive John’s Baptism. And in Acts 19 there was the need to receive Christian Baptism. The necessary baptism for our salvation is the Christian one, then, John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism are different.

I hope you understand what I mean.

See you!

 

[mtolympus]

In Acts 8 there wasn’t the need to receive John’s Baptism. And in Acts 19 there was the need to receive Christian Baptism. The necessary baptism for our salvation is the Christian one, then, John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism are different.

I hope you understand what I mean.!

Yes, very interesting and brilliant point. And it makes sense that after Jesus chose His apostles and organized His church, that those who had been baptised previously should be re-baptized, as baptism is also an entrance into the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, very interesting and brilliant point. And it makes sense that after Jesus chose His apostles and organized His church, that those who had been baptised previously should be re-baptized, as baptism is also an entrance into the Church.

I am impressed.

 

[HojaVerde]

Yes, very interesting and brilliant point. And it makes sense that after Jesus chose His apostles and organized His church, that those who had been baptised previously should be re-baptized, as baptism is also an entrance into the Church.

But I wouldn’t say re-baptize. For Paul they weren’t baptized, since the proper Baptism is the one he performs later. Those disciples only did a penance or repentance action, as he says in the verse Acts 19, 4. That is the John’s Baptism.