DNA Vs Mormonism

[zerinus]

With baptism, i forgot to mention that the word can also mean to draw water or wine out as well as to dip, so the definition argument is moot.

Most significantly, however, we have in the New Testament a crystal clear use of the verb ‘baptizo’ in a context that signifies only a partial washing of the body, as opposed to full immersion. In Luke 11:38 the verb ‘baptizo’ refers to a ritual washing of one’s hands before eating: Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee and “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he had not first washed ‘ebaptisthe’] before dinner.” With this Biblical proof-text as our guide, we can readily see that in the New Testament the verb ‘baptizo’ signifies a ritual cleansing without any necessary reference to the idea of full immersion

Even the famous example of Philip and the Eunuch is highly problematic (Acts 8:36). We are told that they found some water along the desert road between Jerusalem and Gaza, but anyone who is familiar with high deserts such as this will immediately understand that the water, even if it was from a spring, was likely to be far too shallow for a full immersion; surely Phillip baptized the faithful Eunuch by infusion or pouring.

All of the baptism stuff is on this website.

The Paul described baptism by likening to a burial, i.e. comparing it with the burial of Christ, thus making it clear that it was in the form of immersion:

Romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

If a Catholic says they are going to “pray to St. Catherine” for example, that’s just “shorthand” for asking for St. Catherine’s prayers on their behalf. It doesn’t mean that they are praying TO St. Catherine in place of praying to God or Jesus.

This is not a matter of “if”. We do not pray to saints. Any person who tells you that we do is misinformed, misguided, or worse.

I just removed my graphic from my signature because I realized it could be confusing. I don’t see any problem to saying I pray to a saint, because clearly I mean I am directing an intercessory prayer towards them, not asking them for their direct intervention in something. Even before I became interested in the Catholic faith, I understood what this meant. But I guess it’s a distinction that isn’t clear to most non-Catholics. Hey, I am new at this!

 

[ralphinal]

Try this for luck:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/08/evidence-of-missing-scripture-in-bible.html

zerinus

Z,
Thanks. I have no arguments that there were works known to the ancients, especially OT writtings that have been lost. I do have two questions about what you wrote on your blog.

First, you state that this passage shows that John did not write the Gospel of John as we now have it.

24 This * is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
*

Why could the argument not be made that he DID write and and this is not his original work?

Also, Why is it a sign of an Apostate Church to teach that canon is closed?

Not related to what you wrote, why and how where they lost? What if anything was changed?

 

[ralphinal]

The Paul described baptism by likening to a burial, i.e. comparing it with the burial of Christ, thus making it clear that it was in the form of immersion:

Romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

zerinus

Ah, but Paul himself was baptised stading up in a house with no bathtub.

I do not read that text that way. I see Paulas saying that baptism unites us with Christ. It is not the motion undertaken, it is the act of being born again of water and the Spirit in the Nme of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as Christ commanded that does it.

I do not see Jesus equating it with death, but life.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I just removed my graphic from my signature because I realized it could be confusing. I don’t see any problem to saying I pray to a saint, because clearly I mean I am directing an intercessory prayer towards them, not asking them for their direct intervention in something. Even before I became interested in the Catholic faith, I understood what this meant. But I guess it’s a distinction that isn’t clear to most non-Catholics. Hey, I am new at this!

OK, but that was not actually directed at you or your picture. I chose St. Catherine because Catherine (La Boure) is my confirmation name so it was the first that occurred to me.

The fact that we do not pray to saints is not only not clear to some non-Catholics, there are those who probably know better and still push the misinformation, which is just wrong.

 

[ejreydrum]

**Mormans are another branch coming from the Ape family. They spend their time eating black bananas, and like to shave their chests. They have no right and are completely wrong with everything they say and do. If you ever see a morman and they are not in a zoo, then make sure you run away from them. They dont drive cars, they drive zebras.

Sincerely,
Santa**

 

[teancum79]

**Mormans are another branch coming from the Ape family. They spend their time eating black bananas, and like to shave their chests. They have no right and are completely wrong with everything they say and do. If you ever see a morman and they are not in a zoo, then make sure you run away from them. They dont drive cars, they drive zebras.

Sincerely,
Santa**

Wow every now and again I’ll think I’ve seen the most obscured post passable. I was wrong

 

[ibkc]

Thank you for the least useful post ever, ejreydrum. Now run along and get your diaper changed.

 

[zerinus]

Z,
Thanks. I have no arguments that there were works known to the ancients, especially OT writtings that have been lost. I do have two questions about what you wrote on your blog.

First, you state that this passage shows that John did not write the Gospel of John as we now have it.

Why could the argument not be made that he DID write and and this is not his original work?

The context of the passage implies that it is an abridgement of his original work. He did write a gospel of John, but the one we have is an abridgement of it made by someone else.

Also, Why is it a sign of an Apostate Church to teach that canon is closed?

Because it just is. A church that is in communion with God by definition will be able to add to the canon. If it can’t, then it is not in communion with God; and if it is not in communion with God then it is not His true church. Have a look at this thread, and follow the link given in the OP to a talk by Elder Holland:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232866

Not related to what you wrote, why and how where they lost?

The Book of Mormon informs us that they were lost on purpose as a consequence of the apostasy of the original church. See 1 Nephi 13:24–29.

What if anything was changed?

Joseph Smith attempted to restore many of them by revelation in what is known as the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible. The significant changes or differences are published in the LDS edition of the Bible. The larger passages are added as an appendix at the end of the book. The smaller passages are added to the footnotes. Most of the changes were made in the New Testament. The easiest way to study them is to get hold of a cheap paperback copy of the LDS edition of the Bible. Then go through the New Testament part and highlight all the footnotes that are prefixed with JST. Then read the whole of the New Testament in the LDS edition, and compare the text with the highlighted passages in the footnotes. You will learn an awful lot by doing that.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

The context of the passage implies that it is an abridgement of his original work. He did write a gospel of John, but the one we have is an abridgement of it made by someone else.

Implies to you. some may disagree

Because it just is. A church that is in communion with God by definition will be able to add to the canon. If it can’t, then it is not in communion with God; and if it is not in communion with God then it is not His true church. Have a look at this thread, and follow the link given in the OP to a talk by Elder Holland:

What if God thought we had enough information sufficient for salvation? After all, He pulled farther and farther back all through the Old Testement.

The Book of Mormon informs us that they were lost on purpose as a consequence of the apostasy of the original church. See 1 Nephi 13:24–29.

No reason to debate that point. It is part of your scriptures, which is better than the Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupt. How can we be sure that the OT books that were lost were not lost during the Babylonian Exile or one of the other times they got run out of Dodge?

Joseph Smith attempted to restore many of them by revelation in what is known as the “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible. The significant changes or differences are published in the LDS edition of the Bible. The larger passages are added as an appendix at the end of the book. The smaller passages are added to the footnotes. Most of the changes were made in the New Testament. The easiest way to study them is to get hold of a cheap paperback copy of the LDS edition of the Bible. Then go through the New Testament part and highlight all the footnotes that are prefixed with JST. Then read the whole of the New Testament in the LDS edition, and compare the text with the highlighted passages in the footnotes. You will learn an awful lot by doing that.

zerinus

One day, when I get some time, I plan to read some of the LDS religious books.

Thanks

 

[zerinus]

Implies to you. some may disagree

I am sure. But the implications are clear and very strong.

What if God thought we had enough information sufficient for salvation? After all, He pulled farther and farther back all through the Old Testament.

Then at least He should tell us. Truth is, He hasn’t. Throughout the history of man God has revealed himself to mankind by revelation through prophets and by addition to the canon. Nothing has changed that He should stop now.

No reason to debate that point. It is part of your scriptures, which is better than the Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupt. How can we be sure that the OT books that were lost were not lost during the Babylonian Exile or one of the other times they got run out of Dodge?

It is immaterial when they were lost. The main point is that they are lost, and therefore the Bible is not complete.

One day, when I get some time, I plan to read some of the LDS religious books.

Think of how much you are missing the longer you delay!

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Then at least He should tell us. Truth is, He hasn’t. Throughout the history of man God has revealed himself to mankind by revelation through prophets and by addition to the canon. Nothing has changed that He should stop now.

But, do you not agree that he pulled away from the OT people as time went on?

It is immaterial when they were lost. The main point is that they are lost, and therefore the Bible is not complete.

As Obi Wan said, “many the things we hold to are true only from a certain point of view.” I can argue that it does not prove the Bible to be incomplete: we have exactly what God wants us to have or else they would be there.

Think of how much you are missing the longer you delay!

zerinus

Perhaps, but for now I must give unto Ceasar

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

DNA is cool stuff. We are however a far cry from fully understanding it. Many people have been trying to make a huge deal out of the non presence of a genetic marker in Native Americans that is common in Jews. That matters little.

mormonism is not based on reason and faith together, but faith and feelings together. if science contradicts your faith, your faith is false. so if genetic data proves that natives were not the decendents of jews in the americas, then joe smith lied and is a fraud.

there is nothing in the catholic faith that is contradicted by science. there is nothing in the catholic faith that is unreasonable.

 

[Eden]

It is an issue that I have with this forum. Too many people use it to attack others and not discuss other systems of faith. I stay on it because I get more upset at Catholics who argue against the CHurch than non-Catholics who do the same.

Why not try to help lead this forum back to what it should be: a learning and discussion tool, not one to fling dung.

Ralphinal, you must have me confused with someone else, as I have not “flung dung” but I have tried to lead this forum back to what it should be by reminding LaMar that it is disrespectful to the Catholics on this Catholic forum to refer to our faith as a cult and a fairy tale. I’m sure you would agree with me that that kind of dialogue is unproductive and unnecessarily hostile.

 

[Eden]

sure.

Baptism by any form other than full immersion. The very word it self and all biblical reference I’ve seen indicate full immersion.

praying to saints. While this is common in the CC and I’ve heard some reasonable ideas for why its okay. It’s not a practice I can find supported anywhere in the Bible.

The Bible does not give instructions for how a baptism must take place other than the use of water and the form “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”:

                Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will                      baptize ("baptisei") with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei"                      refers to a **"pouring" out over the head**. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where                      the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the                      Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues                      of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, **the Lord                      baptized ("baptizo") in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not                      immersing the person**.

                Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands.                      This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean**                      pouring water over something** (in this case, over their hands).

                Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed ("bapto" from baptizo) cups, pitchers                      and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items.                      Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did                      not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

                Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed ("ebaptisthe") His hands before dinner. Here,                      the derivative of "baptizo" just means washing up, **not immersing**.

                Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is                      archeological proof that **immersion would have been impossible in this area**.                      Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

                Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they "went down into the water," many                      Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the                      verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same                      verb (**"katabaino"**) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel's instruction to                      Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. **The word has nothing to do                      with immersing oneself in water.

** Acts 8:39 - because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

(cont’d)

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

				Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas.  					**There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. **This demonstrates that Paul  					was not immersed.

				Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs  					and swimming pools were not part of homes. **Those in the house could not have been immersed.

** Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house,** so immersion is not possible**.

				Acts 2:17,18,33 - **the pouring of water** is like the "pouring" out of the Holy  					Spirit. Pouring is also called "infusion" (of grace).

				1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized ("baptizo") in the  					cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus  					14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, "baptizo" does not mean  					immersed in these verses.

				Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one  					faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of  					the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (**whether by  					pouring or immersion**), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.

				Titus 3:6 – the “washing of regeneration” (baptism) is **“poured out” **upon us.  					This “pouring out” generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the  					head of the newly baptized.

				Heb. 6:2 – on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is “baptismos”) which  					generally referred to **pouring and not immersion**.

				Heb. 10:22 – the author writes, “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil  					conscience.” **This “sprinkling” of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion.**  					The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its  					ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of  					a person).

				Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord "pours" water on the thirsty land and "pours" His Spirit  					upon our descendants. **The Lord is “pouring,” not “immersing.”

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-IV

If you can show me a verse in the Bible that gives the rules for baptism as full immersion and/or full immersion only, please provide it.
**

 

[Eden]

The earliest-known extant Christian document, the Didache, written circa 70 A.D., describes baptism as follows:

“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century,** was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person**.

catholic.com/library/baptism_immersion_only.asp

 

[RebeccaJ]

http://www.catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Baptism 315-4.jpg

 

[MelanieAnne]

If anyone believes this is about the level of the water they are misguided. How sad to see any argument where WATER, and the LEVEL of that water, is argued about. Something is WRONG.

 

[MomblessedX3]

Personally, I was taught that it doesn’t matter if baptism is done by sprinkling or full emersion. It only becomes a problem when people say that doing it one way or the other is wrong. In my local church…infants are baptised by full emersion and adults are ‘sprinkled’.

The important part is that they are bapstised in the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Sprirt!

NEVER have I been taught or found in research a Biblical or a Tradition that would mandate full emersion.