V
Valke2
Guest
When little Morty was running around saying ‘Jesus was a liar’ I can assure you plenty of christians took that comment seriously.
- Status
K
Karin
Guest
The silence of the Book of Mormon on baptism for the dead is an important fact, for it means that a single verse in the Bible — 1 Corinthians 15:29 — constitutes its sole mention in ancient Christian Scripture. This is acknowledged by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a 1992 work published under the supervision of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church[3](Baptism for the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 | Mormons in Transition Neal A. Maxwell) ) — “He [Paul] refers to a practice of vicarious baptism, a practice for which we have no other evidence in the Pauline or other New Testament or early Christian writings.”[4](Baptism for the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 | Mormons in Transition for the Dead)
1 Corinthians 15:29 reads: *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? *(KJV used here and throughout).
The first thing to notice about this verse is that baptism for the dead is only *mentioned, *it is not actually taught. Given the scanty nature of the evidence, it is especially important to follow sound principles of Scriptural interpretation in seeking to understand this verse. Two basic principles relevant to this task are: (1) do not read a verse in isolation, but carefully consider it in its context, and (2) use clear, unambiguous Scriptural passages to interpret what is obscure or less clear, not the other way around.
A superficial reading of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in isolation from its context may suggest support for baptism for the dead. However, a careful study of the verse in its context and in the light of other relevant Biblical passages, shows that this support it is anything but obvious
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:thumbsup:
irr.org/MIT/baptdead.html
1 Corinthians 15:29 reads: *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? *(KJV used here and throughout).
The first thing to notice about this verse is that baptism for the dead is only *mentioned, *it is not actually taught. Given the scanty nature of the evidence, it is especially important to follow sound principles of Scriptural interpretation in seeking to understand this verse. Two basic principles relevant to this task are: (1) do not read a verse in isolation, but carefully consider it in its context, and (2) use clear, unambiguous Scriptural passages to interpret what is obscure or less clear, not the other way around.
A superficial reading of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in isolation from its context may suggest support for baptism for the dead. However, a careful study of the verse in its context and in the light of other relevant Biblical passages, shows that this support it is anything but obvious
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:thumbsup:
irr.org/MIT/baptdead.html
D
Damascus
Guest
Morty can believe what he wants to. Its not pleasant for a Christian to hear but it takes nothing away from a Christians belief in Jesus for morty to say anything he wishes to say.
In fact the only thing I would think of is that Morty’s parents are not very nice people and are robbing morty of learning good manners. He could simply say “I dont accept Jesus”!
Christians dont say jews are liars. Nice example as per usual Valke2.
D
Damascus
Guest
Who the heck approves of it? nobody. The whole faith wholesale is a sham and not approved by the Catholic Church so what is your point? How much more denouncing do we need to do?
We dont denounce the Jw for their ritual sacrifice of children who die because they are denied blood transfusions. We say its wrong, they are a cult and that is that.
End of story.
No one is loosing their life over this ritual people. Come on!
They are in Gods hands and safe from harm of a cult. Either that or they are in Hell where I hardly think this ritual is on their minds anyway.
V
Valke2
Guest
you’re right. The LDS baptising is much wose than my example. Because it is not simply saying something against our religious beliefs. It is attempting to co-opt them.
why is it that only your feelings are valid?
D
Damascus
Guest
Agreed. Witchcraft is a slippery slope.
This ritual practice is not the only reason this cult may be hellbound. They stack up their odds with each one of their heresies. This is only one of the many.
This one luckily has no effect on anyone’s salvation or lack of. None. Unless you think they have power and you give your consent to it willingly.
How do dead people give consent? They dont. Its so simple why is this such a problem to understand?
D
Damascus
Guest
How can this co-opt anything? Is there anything in your holy books that indicate that this ritual has effect on your dead?
F
flameburns623
Guest
I would reiterate several things about baptism for the dead as practiced by Mormons:
- First, because they believe that only those in the afterlife who did not have an adequate opportunity to learn the truth of the LDS Gospel in this life will benefit from the practice of baptism for the dead anyhow. There is a running debate over on the FAIR-LDS board as to whether Pope JPII knew enough about the LDS ‘gospel’ to have given it a fair hearing anyhow.
- In any case, the practice does not automatically make one an ‘honorary Mormon’. One retains the ability in what they term ‘Spirit Prison’ to accept or reject the Mormon gospel.
- Rejecting the Mormon gospel–whether in this life or in the next–constitutes in LDS theology a rejection, on some level, of the opportunity to enjoy the fullness of fellowship with the Godhead. From this vantage point it seems to me disrespectful of the memory of JPII to suggest that he would not want those who love and care about him to do all in their power to ensure that he could indeed receive such fullness of fellowship–in the supremely unlikely eventually that the LDS ‘gospel’ proved to be true and JPII chose to accept said ‘gospel’ in the afterlife.
- For Mormons it is an ethical duty, an act of respect, and an expression of Christian love to perform proxy baptisms for as many departed souls as possible. I personally do not wish to deter others from performing their duty, paying their respect, not expressing their love, at least not so long as such an act does not incur for me or for the departed any sort of obligation. Baptism for the dead does not.
- For persons of Jewish faith and/or extraction, there is a tragic history of Christians forcibly compelling Jews to accept the Gospel under pain of death. It is in this context, and not just the deplorable tragedy of the Holocaust, that the LDS Church opted not to continue to baptise person of Jewish faith or extraction without permission of some next-of-kin. I happen not to approve of the decision of the LDS Church in abstaining from performing their rites; I happen to strongly disapprove of the decision of the nation of Israel and of other Jewish groups to make this whole issue controversial. That said, the Jewish situation is historically and sociologically unique. I think that in general, Christians and others have no cause to trouble themselves over the practice. After all, Christians pray for one another–living and dead, often without seeking permission of any kind. Roman Catholics in particular not only pray for one another but have masses and other public ceremonies performed on behalf of the departed.
K
Karin
Guest
There is a BIG difference between praying for a dead person and baptising/marrying or antyhing else the mormons do dead people.
K
Karin
Guest
my mistake they baptise the dead, confirm the dead and they have an ordination of the dead…
nowscape.com/mormon/mormcr1b.htm#part_20
V
Valke2
Guest
I’m going to ignore you now. But for the record Jews actually DID rewrite portions of the Talmud to avoid angering Christians. The rest of your post isn’t worth responding to.OH no, someone call the ADL!
Seriously, Valke, get over it. The Mormons shouldn’t have to change their religious practices to appease the Jews…if we Catholics had changed our religious practices to appease you, you people would not have commited deicide by having Christ put to death and killing His Apostles. Your Talmud insults Christ and Mary but I don’t the Catholic League going after you and I don’t see you rewriting your Talmud to appease Christians.
I don’t want to give the impression that the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead is doctrinally OK, I’m just sick of Jews using the Holocaust as an excuse to push everyone around. If the state of Israel is going to make the Mormons change their practice of baptizing the dead so they can have religious freedom there, the state of Utah ought to at least put some restrictions on the practice of Judaism. Anyway, from what I know about Mormonism, the Mormon Church does not choose who they will baptize–individual Mormons just bring in a list of names they have collected of dead people to the temple and they are baptized for them. Usually the dead to be baptized include the person’s own ancestors (and they don’t do it as an insult to their ancestors either). They also don’t target Jews specifically to be baptized, so you can get over yourselves. Do you make such an uproar when Mormons baptize Catholics or Protestants or Jehovah’s Witnesses who were killed in the Holocaust, or are Jews the only ones who are off-limits? Never mind, I already know the answer to that one…
K
Karin
Guest
Valke2-
Are these re-written parts still used today?
And what parts where re-written?
Not poking fun or anything asking honest question(s)
V
Valke2
Guest
There was a short reference to Jesus in the Talmud. I can’t remember the exact quote but I believe it called him a false messiah and briefly discussed his death. It may or may not have questioned his birth. I don’t know. It was removed from the Talmud in fear of angering Christians. It has since been added back in to most translations, usually as an endnote. I’ll try to find more specific information about it. There’s a reference to it in a book I’m reading at home. (I’m at the office now).
V
Valke2
Guest
From WIkipedia:
Scholars have debated the meaning of the name Yeshu (יש"ו in Hebrew), (alt: Jeshu, Yeishu) that appears in various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud (redacted roughly before 600 CE) and the classical midrash literature written between 200 CE and 700 CE. It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning “May his name and memory be obliterated”, used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry in place of the real names of individuals. In all cases the references are to individuals who (whether real or not) are associated with acts or behaviour that are seen as leading Jews away from Judaism to minuth (a term usually translated “heresy” or “apostacy”). Some or many of the references to Yeshu have been traditionally understood to refer to the Jesus of Christianity, for a number of reasons. In several manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud the appellation Ha-Notzri, meaning the nazarene, appears. Others have criticized this view, [16] citing discrepancies between events mentioned in association with Yeshu and the time of Jesus’ life, [17] and differences between accounts of the deaths of Yeshu and Jesus. [18]
The primary references to Yeshu are found in uncensored texts of the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta. (In 1554 the Vatican issued a papal bull censoring the Talmud and other Jewish texts, resulting in the removal of references to Yeshu). No known manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud makes mention of the name although one translation (Herford) has added it to Avodah Zarah 2:2 to align it with similar text of Chullin 2:22 in the Tosefta. All later usages of the term Yeshu are derived from these primary references. In the Munich (1342 CE), Paris, and Jewish Theological Seminary manuscripts of the Talmud, the appellation Ha-Notzri is added to the last mention of Yeshu in Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a as well as to the occurrences in Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 103a, Berachot 17b and Avodah Zarah 16b-17a. Student [1], Zindler and McKinsey [2] note that Ha-Notzri is not found in other early pre-censorship partial manuscripts (the Florence, Hamburg and Karlsruhe) where these cover the passages in question.
Scholars have debated the meaning of the name Yeshu (יש"ו in Hebrew), (alt: Jeshu, Yeishu) that appears in various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud (redacted roughly before 600 CE) and the classical midrash literature written between 200 CE and 700 CE. It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning “May his name and memory be obliterated”, used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry in place of the real names of individuals. In all cases the references are to individuals who (whether real or not) are associated with acts or behaviour that are seen as leading Jews away from Judaism to minuth (a term usually translated “heresy” or “apostacy”). Some or many of the references to Yeshu have been traditionally understood to refer to the Jesus of Christianity, for a number of reasons. In several manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud the appellation Ha-Notzri, meaning the nazarene, appears. Others have criticized this view, [16] citing discrepancies between events mentioned in association with Yeshu and the time of Jesus’ life, [17] and differences between accounts of the deaths of Yeshu and Jesus. [18]
The primary references to Yeshu are found in uncensored texts of the Babylonian Talmud and the Tosefta. (In 1554 the Vatican issued a papal bull censoring the Talmud and other Jewish texts, resulting in the removal of references to Yeshu). No known manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud makes mention of the name although one translation (Herford) has added it to Avodah Zarah 2:2 to align it with similar text of Chullin 2:22 in the Tosefta. All later usages of the term Yeshu are derived from these primary references. In the Munich (1342 CE), Paris, and Jewish Theological Seminary manuscripts of the Talmud, the appellation Ha-Notzri is added to the last mention of Yeshu in Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a as well as to the occurrences in Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 103a, Berachot 17b and Avodah Zarah 16b-17a. Student [1], Zindler and McKinsey [2] note that Ha-Notzri is not found in other early pre-censorship partial manuscripts (the Florence, Hamburg and Karlsruhe) where these cover the passages in question.
D
Damascus
Guest
Geez thats funny. I was reading a book last month about some parts of our Mass that were changed in order to Not Offend our Jewish friends.
Wonder how it would be if we added it back in?
K
Karin
Guest
thank you Valke2…that is very interesting.
V
Valke2
Guest
Well, the Talmud was redacted mostly out of fear of violence than concern for christian feelings.Geez thats funny. I was reading a book last month about some parts of our Mass that were changed in order to Not Offend our Jewish friends.
Wonder how it would be if we added it back in?
P
Prague
Guest
Zerinus: Just have a question about your faith. After death do you also have a procedure to grant a celestial wife to a non-mormon? Is this correct or did I just hear some information that was not correct.
Thank you for your answer
Prague
Thank you for your answer
Prague
D
Damascus
Guest
Wow. My feelings are hurt.
E
Eden
Guest
Valke, you’re talking about versions of the Talmud that were being written at the same time as the emergence of Christianity, are you not?
The wikipedia article goes on to list the explanations for the dearth of information about Jesus in the Talmud:
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism’s_view_of_Jesus
The wikipedia article goes on to list the explanations for the dearth of information about Jesus in the Talmud:
Wikipedia:
What I understand these two bullet points to mean, is that even if we reinsert the passages “expurgated”, this still produces only a few mentions of Yeshu, written at a time when “Christianity was first emerging”. If that is the case, it would only make sense that the Jews would rearrange some of their earlier works to color Jesus as a false prophet. If these expurgated passages are somehow supposed to be convincing evidence that Jesus was predicted as a false prophet, I’m not convinced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism’s_view_of_Jesus
- Status