How do Catholic's read/understand

[Ruthie]

Ruthie read the Catholic Edition. Yes the chapter is dealing with the resurection but is also dealing with doing baptisms on behalf of those who dead

You are basing an entire doctrine on two questions, right next to each other, in a passage which is overall about the truth of the Resurrection. They are questions, not statements. The dogma being discussed is the Resurrection, not baptism.

**Nowhere **else in the NT is baptism on the behalf of the dead mentioned. If it was that important, it **would **be. Baptism, of course, is mentioned over and over. It regenerates our own souls, not anyone else’s. Do you really think that something that important would just be mentioned in passing?

If I thought that I could get a deceased loved one into Heaven by being baptized again, I’d be getting pretty wet. But when we die, we are judged based on our own choices, not the piety of our descendants.

When you quoted 1 Peter 3, were you trying to make a connection with 1 Cor 15:29? If so, it won’t fly.

The subject of the entire chapter is suffering in order to do good for others, especially in marriage.

One of the results of Jesus suffering through the Crucifixion is that He went and preached to “the spirits in prison,” especially for the rebellious ones like those who died in the flood. He preached to those who had not had the opportunity to hear Him.

Peter ties the water of the flood with the water of baptism, which drowns our “old Adam” and regenerates us. That tying in is what “the like figure” means.

If he had meant that baptism would save those who died in the flood, he would have said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save them.” But he said “us.”

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[Steadfast_love]

Quote:
KJV - 1 Cor. 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The Holy Bible Catholic Edition - 1 Cor. 15:29
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

Would this not mean that baptisms were done on behalf of those that are dead by proxy ?

Here it is again with the subtext:

1 Cor. 15:29
[Christ is risen] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

St. Paul is talking about being baptised on behalf of the resurected Christ v.s. baptised on behalf of a corpse that is “not raised at all.”

In any case, whatever command you imagine those two questions to contain, remember that they are exclusive to believing in Christ’s resurection. So, it’s actualy better for LDS if their doctrines do not appear there.

 

[ronald_g_w]

A man learns of JEsus. In this case, let’s say that he is in a prison in a totalitarian country. He decides to become a Christian. However, he cannot be physically baptised. The concept of a baptism of desire is that God knows that the person would have become Christian if allowed to, and is therefore treated as such. This is not specifically stated in Scripture, but it flowes naturally from it as long as we understand that God is merciful

That one is not as easy as you would think. There are multiple denominations that deny the need for it at all.

Again, this one is not specifically stated in Scriptures. The classic example given is that of someone who willingly dies for the faith even though they are not a formal member of it. We understand that to die for the Gosple is a wonderful gift. We also know that to die for one’s friends is the greatest example of love: it is a true imatation of Christ. The Church also teaches that willing martyrdom is a gift from God. The natural human response to the threat of death is to fight it, resist it in any way possible. Singing while being dragged to the gallows is NOT a normal thing to do. The Church teaches that those who posses this level of the Holy Spirit would not be denied heaven, though they are not Christian on earth.

then there is a forth baptism FIRE

 

[AshleyBelle]

then there is a forth baptism FIRE

Are you confusing the cleansing “fire” of purgatory with baptism?

 

[NewSeeker]

1 Cor 15:29 says that someone, somewhere in Paul’s time was baptizing by proxy and Paul uses that evidence as support for the reality of resurrection. That’s all it says. Paul doesn’t say whether he approves or disapproves. Everything else is read into it based on your personal world view (e.g Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon). There needs to be an authoritative interpreter of the verse, or else we devolve into the chaos of private interpretation where everyone believes the Spirit has inspired them (i.e., sola scriptura). That leaves Catholics vs. Mormons. Joseph Smith loses all credibility since his claims about the existence of Nephites/Lamanites in the Book of Mormon cannot withstand scrutiny (there is ZERO archeological evidence that such civililzations ever existed). More tellingly, his claims about the origin of the Book of Abraham (also part of the LDS canon) have been completely debunked. Joseph Smith made it all up. Smith and his church, therefore, have no credibility and cannot be depended on for an authoritative interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29.

There must be an authoritative source for interpretation, a place where the buck stops and the final word is given. Sola scriptura leads to chaos and cannot, therefore, be from God; Joseph Smith has no credibility. That leaves the most ancient Christian institution and Tradition as the only remaining possible source for authoritative interpretation of the verse in question.

Look to what the Church teaches for your answer of the true meaning of 1 Cor 15:29.

NS

 

[ronald_g_w]

Are you confusing the cleansing “fire” of purgatory with baptism?

NO
Matt 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

[ronald_g_w]

1That leaves Catholics vs. Mormons. Joseph Smith loses all credibility since his claims about the existence of Nephites/Lamanites in the Book of Mormon cannot withstand scrutiny (there is ZERO archeological evidence that such civililzations ever existed). More tellingly, his claims about the origin of the Book of Abraham (also part of the LDS canon) have been completely debunked. Joseph Smith made it all up. NS

Where are you getting your info from because the info I have read over the years says otherwise

I realy believe that if anyone was honest with themselves they would come to the conclusion that baptism for the dead by proxy was an ordanance performed by the primative church

 

[ronald_g_w]

You are basing an entire doctrine on two questions, right next to each other, in a passage which is overall about the truth of the Resurrection. They are questions, not statements. The dogma being discussed is the Resurrection, not baptism.

How do we know it was not there and has been ommited ?

If I thought that I could get a deceased loved one into Heaven by being baptized again, I’d be getting pretty wet. But when we die, we are judged based on our own choices, not the piety of our descendants.

Is baptism not a crucial ordanance of the gospel and if so why then does it only apply to the living ?

When you quoted 1 Peter 3, were you trying to make a connection with 1 Cor 15:29? If so, it won’t fly.

The subject of the entire chapter is suffering in order to do good for others, especially in marriage.

One of the results of Jesus suffering through the Crucifixion is that He went and preached to “the spirits in prison,” especially for the rebellious ones like those who died in the flood. He preached to those who had not had the opportunity to hear Him.

Once Jesus has taught those in prison and they have a change of heart why would they not need to be baptised in order to enter the kingdom surely if it is necessary for u and I it is for them, hence baptism by proxy, If they reject it, it is then not binding on them, if one bases their enterance on desire then why have a physical ordanance for any of us can desire but not many are prepared to take that step

Peter ties the water of the flood with the water of baptism, which drowns our “old Adam” and regenerates us. That tying in is what “the like figure” means.

If he had meant that baptism would save those who died in the flood, he would have said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save them.” But he said “us.”

I really do not see it that way, it is only effective if accepted.
A thought: “Peter ties the water of the flood with the water of baptism” Is it possible that this earth also underwent a baptism of water and is yet to under-go one of fire in order for it to forfill its destiny so the meek can inherit it ?

 

[NewSeeker]

Where are you getting your info from because the info I have read over the years says otherwise

I realy believe that if anyone was honest with themselves they would come to the conclusion that baptism for the dead by proxy was an ordanance performed by the primative church

Paul doesn’t say who practiced the ordinance. He only referred to an ambiguous “they” without identifying the group. Maybe it was the primitive church; maybe it wasn’t. I think anyone honest with themselves would conclude that there isn’t enough evidence from the verses to decide who Paul was talking about.

Regarding the Book of Abraham, some of the original papyri Joseph Smith used to “translate” the book survived the Chicago fire of 1872 and were rediscovered in a museum in 1968. The fragment contains most of facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham and hieroglyphics surrounding the figure. The fragments were glued onto a hard paper backing and have a drawing of Kirtland, Ohio at Joseph’s time stenciled on the back. Hugh Nibley authenticated the fragment and was very excited at first when these were discovered, telling the First Presidency that at last the Book of Abraham would be vindicated once the hieroglyphics were translated to reveal the Book of Abraham text produced by Joseph. Joseph and/or his scribes produced a crosswalk (called by Joseph the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) that was used to match specific hieroglyphic from the papyrus with text in the Book of Abraham translation. Nibley called this document the “Kirtland Papers”. Many of the hieroglyphics found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar are found in the papyrus fragment next to the figure now known as Facsimile 1. So for this reason, and the fact of the drawing of Kirtland on the back, we know this was some of the papyrus used by Joseph to translate the book. Egyptologists have translated the hieroglyphics and found that the papyrus does not have anything to do with Abraham, but instead with an Egyptian priest named Hor. The papyrus is part of very ordinary funeral documents, of which there are many surviving examples with the same figures as reproduced by Joseph in the Book of Abraham (facsimiles 1-3). The papyrus was Hor’s “breathing permit”, or ticket to enter the Egyptian afterlife to be judged by Osiris. In fact, facsimile 3 in your copy of the Book of Abraham depicts Hor’s judgment by Osiris. Hor’s name, and the phrase “Osiris Hor justified” are found in hieroglyphics above the head of one of the figures in facsimile 3 in the BoA. Take a look at it in your quad. Put your hand over the key to facsimile 3 and guess the gender of the figures you see in the picture. There are male figures and female figures. Look at the figures yourself without reading the key and guess which are female and which are male. Than take a look at the key, which provides Joseph Smith’s identification of the figures. Joseph obviously misidentified the females as males (e.g. he called Isis “Prince Pharaoh”. Facsimile 3 is found in other copies of the Book of Breathings discovered with other mummies over the years. It’s the exact same figure as that found in your BoA and known as facsimile 3. This is a scene of Hor’s judgment by Osiris; it has nothing to do with Abraham “reasoning upon principles of astronomy” with Pharaoh - which is what Joseph Smith said it was. The names of these figures are given in hieroglyphics above their heads. Take a look at fac. 3 and you’ll see the hieroglphics. Egyptologists translate these names as Isis, Osiris, the person being judged (in Joseph Smith’s papyrus that person is Hor), Maat, and Anubis. All but Hor are Egyptian deities and the exact same scene and mode of depiction are found in many other examples of the Book of Breathings found with other mummies.

What Joseph purchased from Michael Chandler in were very ordinary Egyptian funeral documents. He mistranslated these as the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. You can simply google the Book of Abraham and take a look at photos of the papyrus fragments yourself and read the Egyptologists translations (one of whom is Michael Welch at BYU). LDS scholars now admit all of this, but have abandoned the idea that Abraham penned the text of the papyrus himself. Now they lean toward the silly idea that Joseph only used the papyrus as a cipher and that the true text was hidden behind the actual hieroglyhpics and that Joseph was given the text by revelation. This is, of course, complete nonsense and is contradicted by Joseph himself, who said that the papyrus was written by Abraham, “by his own hand upon papyrus.” Joseph made the whole thing up. The BoA is bogus.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

Here’s a link to facsimile 3. Take a look and tell me: are the first and third people in the figure male or female?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Abraham_Facsimile_3.png/420px-Abraham_Facsimile_3.png

Joseph Smith got it completely backward. The names of the Egyptian deities are given above their heads in hieroglpyhics. Hor is the fourth person in the picture.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Here’s a link to facsimile 3. Take a look and tell me: are the first and third people in the figure male or female?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Abraham_Facsimile_3.png/420px-Abraham_Facsimile_3.png

Joseph Smith got it completely backward. The names of the Egyptian deities are given above their heads in hieroglpyhics. Hor is the fourth person in the picture.

Thanks will do so

 

[ronald_g_w]

Paul doesn’t say who practiced the ordinance. He only referred to an ambiguous “they” without identifying the group. Maybe it was the primitive church; maybe it wasn’t. I think anyone honest with themselves would conclude that there isn’t enough evidence from the verses to decide who Paul was talking about.

Regarding the Book of Abraham, some of the original papyri Joseph Smith used to “translate” the book survived the Chicago fire of 1872 and were rediscovered in a museum in 1968. The fragment contains most of facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham and hieroglyphics surrounding the figure. The fragments were glued onto a hard paper backing and have a drawing of Kirtland, Ohio at Joseph’s time stenciled on the back. Hugh Nibley authenticated the fragment and was very excited at first when these were discovered, telling the First Presidency that at last the Book of Abraham would be vindicated once the hieroglyphics were translated to reveal the Book of Abraham text produced by Joseph. Joseph and/or his scribes produced a crosswalk (called by Joseph the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) that was used to match specific hieroglyphic from the papyrus with text in the Book of Abraham translation. Nibley called this document the “Kirtland Papers”. Many of the hieroglyphics found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar are found in the papyrus fragment next to the figure now known as Facsimile 1. So for this reason, and the fact of the drawing of Kirtland on the back, we know this was some of the papyrus used by Joseph to translate the book. Egyptologists have translated the hieroglyphics and found that the papyrus does not have anything to do with Abraham, but instead with an Egyptian priest named Hor. The papyrus is part of very ordinary funeral documents, of which there are many surviving examples with the same figures as reproduced by Joseph in the Book of Abraham (facsimiles 1-3). The papyrus was Hor’s “breathing permit”, or ticket to enter the Egyptian afterlife to be judged by Osiris. In fact, facsimile 3 in your copy of the Book of Abraham depicts Hor’s judgment by Osiris. Hor’s name, and the phrase “Osiris Hor justified” are found in hieroglyphics above the head of one of the figures in facsimile 3 in the BoA. Take a look at it in your quad. Put your hand over the key to facsimile 3 and guess the gender of the figures you see in the picture. There are male figures and female figures. Look at the figures yourself without reading the key and guess which are female and which are male. Than take a look at the key, which provides Joseph Smith’s identification of the figures. Joseph obviously misidentified the females as males (e.g. he called Isis “Prince Pharaoh”. Facsimile 3 is found in other copies of the Book of Breathings discovered with other mummies over the years. It’s the exact same figure as that found in your BoA and known as facsimile 3. This is a scene of Hor’s judgment by Osiris; it has nothing to do with Abraham “reasoning upon principles of astronomy” with Pharaoh - which is what Joseph Smith said it was. The names of these figures are given in hieroglyphics above their heads. Take a look at fac. 3 and you’ll see the hieroglphics. Egyptologists translate these names as Isis, Osiris, the person being judged (in Joseph Smith’s papyrus that person is Hor), Maat, and Anubis. All but Hor are Egyptian deities and the exact same scene and mode of depiction are found in many other examples of the Book of Breathings found with other mummies.

What Joseph purchased from Michael Chandler in were very ordinary Egyptian funeral documents. He mistranslated these as the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. You can simply google the Book of Abraham and take a look at photos of the papyrus fragments yourself and read the Egyptologists translations (one of whom is Michael Welch at BYU). LDS scholars now admit all of this, but have abandoned the idea that Abraham penned the text of the papyrus himself. Now they lean toward the silly idea that Joseph only used the papyrus as a cipher and that the true text was hidden behind the actual hieroglyhpics and that Joseph was given the text by revelation. This is, of course, complete nonsense and is contradicted by Joseph himself, who said that the papyrus was written by Abraham, “by his own hand upon papyrus.” Joseph made the whole thing up. The BoA is bogus.

NS

The first question that comes to my mind is if these scholars have proved this incorrect why did they not just do it from the facsimile in the BoA years ago ?

 

[NewSeeker]

The first question that comes to my mind is if these scholars have proved this incorrect why did they not just do it from the facsimile in the BoA years ago ?

I don’t know. I’m not sure that someone didn’t examine Fac. 3 years ago, but I’m unaware if someone did. To my knowledge, the first to examine the original papyri was Klaus Baer, who did so at the request of the First Presidency in the late 60s.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Quote:
KJV - 1 Cor. 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The Holy Bible Catholic Edition - 1 Cor. 15:29
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf ?

Would this not mean that baptisms were done on behalf of those that are dead by proxy ?

from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 29. Who are baptized for the dead.[1] He still brings other proofs of the resurrection. This is a hard place, and the words are differently expounded. 1. Several late interpreters understand a metaphorical baptism, and that to be baptized for the dead, is to undertake self-denials, mortifications, and works of penance, in hopes of a happy resurrection; and this exposition agrees with what follows, of being exposed to dangers every hour, of dying daily, &c. But if this had been the apostle’s meaning, he would rather have said, Who baptize themselves. Besides, this exposition is not so much as mentioned in any of the ancient interpreters. 2. Some think that St. Paul tells the Corinthians that they ought not to question the resurrection of the dead, who had a custom among them, if any one died without baptism, to baptize another that was living for him; and this they did, fancying that such a baptism would be profitable to the dead person, in order to a happy resurrection. Tertullian mentions this custom in one or two places, and also St. Chrysostom on this place. But it does not seem probable that St. Paul would bring any argument of the resurrection from a custom which he himself could not approve, nor was ever approved in the Church. 3. St. Chrysostom and the Greek interpreters, who generally follow him, expound these words, who are baptized for the dead, as if it were the same as to say, who receive baptism with hopes that they themselves, and all the dead, will rise again; and therefore make a profession, when they are baptized, that they believe the resurrection. So that St. Paul here brings this proof among others, that they who have been made Christians, and continue Christians, cannot call in question the resurrection, which they professed to believe in their creed at their baptism, the creed being always repeated before they were baptized. 4. Others, by being baptized for the dead, understand those who begged and called for baptism when they were in danger of death, and would by no means go out of this world without being baptized, hoping thereby to have a happy resurrection of their bodies; so that to be baptized for the dead is the same as on the account of the state of the dead, which they were entering into. See St. Epiphanius, hær. viii. p. 144. Edit Petavii. (Witham) Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use: but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed: or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead. (Challoner)

BTW what Catholic version are you referring to when you say “Holy Bible Catholic Edtion”?

 

[ronald_g_w]

from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 29. Who are baptized for the dead.[1] He still brings other proofs of the resurrection. This is a hard place, and the words are differently expounded. 1. Several late interpreters understand a metaphorical baptism, and that to be baptized for the dead, is to undertake self-denials, mortifications, and works of penance, in hopes of a happy resurrection; and this exposition agrees with what follows, of being exposed to dangers every hour, of dying daily, &c. But if this had been the apostle’s meaning, he would rather have said, Who baptize themselves. Besides, this exposition is not so much as mentioned in any of the ancient interpreters. 2. Some think that St. Paul tells the Corinthians that they ought not to question the resurrection of the dead, who had a custom among them, if any one died without baptism, to baptize another that was living for him; and this they did, fancying that such a baptism would be profitable to the dead person, in order to a happy resurrection. Tertullian mentions this custom in one or two places, and also St. Chrysostom on this place. But it does not seem probable that St. Paul would bring any argument of the resurrection from a custom which he himself could not approve, nor was ever approved in the Church. 3. St. Chrysostom and the Greek interpreters, who generally follow him, expound these words, who are baptized for the dead, as if it were the same as to say, who receive baptism with hopes that they themselves, and all the dead, will rise again; and therefore make a profession, when they are baptized, that they believe the resurrection. So that St. Paul here brings this proof among others, that they who have been made Christians, and continue Christians, cannot call in question the resurrection, which they professed to believe in their creed at their baptism, the creed being always repeated before they were baptized. 4. Others, by being baptized for the dead, understand those who begged and called for baptism when they were in danger of death, and would by no means go out of this world without being baptized, hoping thereby to have a happy resurrection of their bodies; so that to be baptized for the dead is the same as on the account of the state of the dead, which they were entering into. See St. Epiphanius, hær. viii. p. 144. Edit Petavii. (Witham) Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use: but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed: or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead. (Challoner)

BTW what Catholic version are you referring to when you say “Holy Bible Catholic Edtion”?

RSV What is the diffrence between the different Catholic versions and which one should one refer to

 

[tobinatorstark]

RSV What is the diffrence between the different Catholic versions and which one should one refer to

Just curious. There are different Catholic versions out there. It just helps to mention which version you are using so others can pull data from that translation. Differences between some Catholic versions. is Luke 1:28. The RSV-CE read “Hail full of grace the Lord is with you” The NAB reads Hail favored one, the Lord is with you. 1970 NAB reads Hail, highly favored daughter, the Lord is with you, Blessed are you among women, JB reads "Rejoice oh highly favored the Lord is with you and. The Douay-Rheims reads “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women” Personally I like the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims on this one though. To me it seems some Catholic versions leave out important part of the verse. It is just easier to follow along when you give the translation.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Just curious. There are different Catholic versions out there. It just helps to mention which version you are using so others can pull data from that translation. Differences between some Catholic versions. is Luke 1:28. The RSV-CE read “Hail full of grace the Lord is with you” The NAB reads Hail favored one, the Lord is with you. 1970 NAB reads Hail, highly favored daughter, the Lord is with you, Blessed are you among women, JB reads "Rejoice oh highly favored the Lord is with you and. The Douay-Rheims reads “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee, Blessed art thou amongst women” Personally I like the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims on this one though. To me it seems some Catholic versions leave out important part of the verse. It is just easier to follow along when you give the translation.