Seeking the True Church

[RebeccaJ]

his apostles did not go to a seminary and receive a degree. That is a requirement for those holding the Catholic priesthood.

They traveled, lived, ate and were taught day and night, for THREE years, by Jesus Himself. I think that qualifies as receiving an education before Jesus ascended and left them in charge.

PS: you sure do a lot of complaining about Catholicism for someone who isn’t here to complain about Catholicism.

 

[adrift]

I did with the 17 characteristics earlier, with Bible scriptures. No the issue is this ---- they are not your answers, further reasoning Catholicism is lacking across the board in several areas.

Apparently, reading my conviction of the truth through the Holy Ghost bothers some of you.

I am not here to offend just state the truth has set me free from Catholicism.

The Scriptures you used to justify the 17 characteristics, as I pointed out, do not. You dismissed my post with nice try. It wasn’t just a nice try. It was a valid refutation of most of the 17 that you listed.
You throw around apostasy but I wonder if you could even define what apostasy means?
Apostasy is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief. Where is this event in history. For it to have occurred our Church would have had to cease to exist which it has existed since Jesus put Peter in charge. You don’t state truth. You parrot a man who was a proved charlatan.

 

[CourtingTex]

They traveled, lived, ate and were taught day and night, for THREE years, by Jesus Himself. I think that qualifies as receiving an education before Jesus ascended and left them in charge.

PS: you sure do a lot of complaining about Catholicism for someone who isn’t here to complain about Catholicism.

You correct that they were taught by Christ.

Why are you concerned about the unnecessary assault on my church? That is fact as I see it.

 

[JMM1957]

The manner is clear, as Jesus Christ experienced.

If, to answer your question, if the ordinance is done by one holding the correct priesthood authority, approved the amount of water, then it is fine.

How do you explain, the need that a Catholic priest or deacon needing to go to seminary, and then ordained by another (in this case the bishop or archbishop) when Jesus Christ called his original apostles (notice he called them — they did not have a feeling/etc and call themselves) — there a scripture about that — his apostles did not go to a seminary and receive a degree. That is a requirement for those holding the Catholic priesthood.

Good, then #7 on your list is not an absolute requirement for the true Church to hold to. So that makes that list suspect already.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You correct that they were taught by Christ.

Why are you concerned about the unnecessary assault on my church? That is fact as I see it.

As I said, Mormonism’s foundation is reliant on anti-Catholicism

A Mormon/Catholic discussions seems to always channel towards how Mormons are wrong about their anti-Catholicism…and then Mormons will cry how anti-Mormon Catholics are.

There isn’t one single point, teaching, belief, in Mormonism that doesn’t involve itself in being anti-Christian, and often more specific to Catholicism. Beginning with Joseph Smith’s story.

You do it yourself, coming to a group of Catholics and making comments about how wrong Catholicism is compared to Mormonism that’s got it ohhhh so right…so if you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[JMM1957]

CT, is your prophet Mr. Monson aware of this list below, and would he agree all 17 items must be strictly adhered to by the true church?

Here the characteristics
1 Christ organized the church (Eph 4:11-14)
2 The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:23)
3 The true church must have a foundation of apostles and prophets (Eph 2:19-20)
4 The true church must have the same organization as Christ’s church (Eph 4:11-14)
5 The true church must claim divine authority (Heb 5:4-10)
6 The true church must have no paid ministry (1 Cor 9:16-18,Acts 20:33-34,John 10:11-13)
7 The true church must baptise by immersion (Matt 3:13-16)
8 The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)
9. The true church must practice divine healing (Mark 3:14-15)
10 The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11, 20:17)
11 The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39, Acts 1:9-11, Heb 1:1-3)
12 The officers must be called by God (Heb 4:4, Ex 28:1, 40:13-16)
13 The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)
14 The true church must be a missionary church (Matt 28:19-20)
15 The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)
16 The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:16 &29)
17 “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:20)

 

[CourtingTex]

Good, then #7 on your list is not an absolute requirement for the true Church to hold to. So that makes that list suspect already.

To be clear, if the proper priesthood authority approved such as your question stated fine. It would be exception not the normal — Jesus Christ set the example by immersion.

In my church, what you suggested would never happen, water significant to immerse would be found and used, whether in a font, swimming pool, a body of water.

 

[gazelam]

CT, just for the record, your #16 on the list, baptism for the dead, is not a practice that seemed to be very common, even among the Corinthians that Paul was addressing in his letter (1 Cor. 15:29). Some Corinthians, maybe a small number, were denying the resurrection, and yet they were having themselves baptized for the dead. Paul was simply pointing out their inconsistency in that they didn’t believe in the resurrection, yet were baptizing themselves for the dead who never were baptized, but possibly had faith in Jesus before they died. Because baptism for the dead is only mentioned one time in the Bible, it is hard to come to a definite conclusion about how it was looked upon by Paul, as we don’t have other scriptural references that help us come to a certain answer about it. So, based on that, baptism for the dead looks to be an obscure practice by a unique congregation, and certainly should not be included as a requirement for the true church to practice. But of course, you may have some so-called scripture that was written by Joseph Smith in the 19th century that may shed more light on the worthiness of the practice.

Lutheran Bishop and Scholar Krister Stendahl makes the following observation regarding the ancient Christian practice of Baptism for the Dead:

*In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul wrote: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians 15:29).

This verse is part of Paul’s argumentation against those who denied a future resurrection (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18,Justin, Dial. 80). He 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. Interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood “the dead” to refer to one’s own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism “for the sake of joining” lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: “Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?”

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes. Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul’s reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor. 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, “taking account of the resurrection,” makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)

To this could be added that the next link in Paul’s argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor. 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil. 2:17, Rom. 15:16,cf. Col. 1:24).

Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul’s remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.*

I hope this helps…

 

[CourtingTex]

Lutheran Bishop and Scholar Krister Stendahl makes the following observation regarding the ancient Christian practice of Baptism for the Dead:

*In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul wrote: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians 15:29).

This verse is part of Paul’s argumentation against those who denied a future resurrection (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18,Justin, Dial. 80). He 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. Interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood “the dead” to refer to one’s own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism “for the sake of joining” lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: “Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?”

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes.* Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul’s reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor. 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, “taking account of the resurrection,” makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)

To this could be added that the next link in Paul’s argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor. 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil. 2:17, Rom. 15:16,cf. Col. 1:24).

Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul’s remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

I hope this helps…

No it does not. It does not dismiss the importance of this taking in the temple for the dead.
God is just and fair ---- yet according to you All Saints day whatever is all that is needed for the dead?

Again, as I have repeatedly here ---- you believe whatever you want.

This ordinance in behalf of the dead is important and necessary.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lutheran Bishop and Scholar Krister Stendahl makes the following observation regarding the ancient Christian practice of Baptism for the Dead:

Catholics have doctrines regarding who has the authority to interpret scripture. Sometimes we see interpretations given by Lutherans, sometimes by the New York Times. We aren’t bound by them.

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead.
Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul’s remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

I hope this helps…

OK, this says to me, once you remove Sacred Tradition, we can make a new interpretation…Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Nice try!

 

[RebeccaJ]

No it does not. It does not dismiss the importance of this taking in the temple for the dead.
God is just and fair ---- yet according to you All Saints day whatever is all that is needed for the dead?

Again, as I have repeatedly here ---- you believe whatever you want.

This ordinance in behalf of the dead is important and necessary.

CT…gazelem is a Mormon! You didn’t read the post at all did you?

 

[JMM1957]

To be clear, if the proper priesthood authority approved such as your question stated fine. It would be exception not the normal — Jesus Christ set the example by immersion.

In my church, what you suggested would never happen, water significant to immerse would be found and used, whether in a font, swimming pool, a body of water.

See, this is the problem with reading into words more than you should, when talking about immersion. The Bible says Jesus went into the water and came out of the water, no specific mention of how deep he went, does it. He could have been standing in ankle deep water, or over his head in water, or anything in between, it doesn’t say. So, what exactly was the example that Jesus set for the amount of water covering your body in baptism? Get what I’m saying? So, again I ask you, is the amount of water really the most important aspect of baptism?

 

[JMM1957]

Lutheran Bishop and Scholar Krister Stendahl makes the following observation regarding the ancient Christian practice of Baptism for the Dead:

*In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul wrote: “Otherwise, what shall they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them” (Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians 15:29).

This verse is part of Paul’s argumentation against those who denied a future resurrection (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18,Justin, Dial. 80). He 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. Interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.

A practice of vicarious baptism for the dead (for example among the Marcionites, A.D. 150) was known and seen as heretical by the ancient commentators. Thus they interpreted Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:29 so as not to lend support to such practices or to any theology implicit in it. Through the ages their interpretations have persisted and multiplied (B. M. Foschini reports and evaluates forty distinct explanations of this verse). Most of the Greek fathers understood “the dead” to refer to one’s own body; others have interpreted the verse as referring to pagans seeking baptism “for the sake of joining” lost Christian relatives. Still others have suggested different sentence structures: “Otherwise what will they achieve who are being baptized? Something merely for their dead bodies?”

Once the theological pressures from later possible developments of practice and doctrine are felt less constricting, the text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes.* Such a practice can be understood in partial analogy with Paul’s reference to how the pagan spouses and joint children in mixed marriages are sanctified and cleansed by the Christian partners (1 Cor. 7:14). Reference has often been made to 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, where Judas Maccabeaus, “taking account of the resurrection,” makes Atonement for his dead comrades. (This was the very passage which Dr. Eck used in favor of purgatory in his 1519 Leipzig debate with Martin Luther. So it became part of the reason why Protestant Bibles excluded the Apocrypha or relegated them to an Appendix.)

To this could be added that the next link in Paul’s argument for a future resurrection is his own exposure to martyrdom (1 Cor. 15:30-32), a martyrdom that Paul certainly thinks of as having a vicarious effect (Phil. 2:17, Rom. 15:16,cf. Col. 1:24).

Such a connection may be conscious or unconscious. In either case it makes it quite reasonable that Paul’s remark refers to a practice of a vicarious baptism for the dead.

I hope this helps…

Pretty much what I said.

 

[JMM1957]

No it does not. It does not dismiss the importance of this taking in the temple for the dead.
God is just and fair ----** yet according to you All Saints day whatever is all that is needed for the dead?**

Again, as I have repeatedly here ---- you believe whatever you want.

This ordinance in behalf of the dead is important and necessary.

I just explained All Saints Day to you about an hour ago, obviously you didn’t read that post through.

 

[adrift]

To be clear, if the proper priesthood authority approved such as your question stated fine. It would be exception not the normal — Jesus Christ set the example by immersion.

In my church, what you suggested would never happen, water significant to immerse would be found and used, whether in a font, swimming pool, a body of water.

There is not one scripture that Jesus was immersed. If you are referring to it saying that He came up out of the water, pardon the pun but it doesn’t hold water. If I am wading in the water and go to shore I can rightfully say that I came up out of the water. As I pointed out, you ignored, 3000 were baptized by the Apostles in one day. They could not have been immersed so there goes your argument.

 

[adrift]

No it does not. It does not dismiss the importance of this taking in the temple for the dead.
God is just and fair ---- yet according to you All Saints day whatever is all that is needed for the dead?

Again, as I have repeatedly here ---- you believe whatever you want.

This ordinance in behalf of the dead is important and necessary.

As I pointed out to you, Paul mentioned a practice of baptism of the dead but nowhere does he say that It must be practiced nor does he condone it. Merely pointing out the inconsistency of their practice if they didn’t believe in a resurrection. The scripture does not say he practiced nor is there scripture commanding it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You can think what you want about Joseph Smith. I recognize the restored gospel and church are a issue for some people.

The list of characteristics (17) of Christ’s church exist only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Partly, in other churches otherwise.

The LDS church does not have Apostles because those you name as such do not meet the criteria for being an Apostle (Acts 1:20-22) and the LDS church does have a paid ministry, the president and all members of the 15 are paid, GA’s are paid and 70’s are paid.

 

[JMM1957]

The LDS church does not have Apostles because those you name as such do not meet the criteria for being an Apostle (Acts 1:20-22)** and the LDS church does have a paid ministry, the president and all members of the 15 are paid, GA’s are paid and 70’s are paid**.

True, and they will call it “living expenses” rather than a “salary”, to make it sound like they don’t get rich off of it.

 

[Wannano]

There is not one scripture that Jesus was immersed. If you are referring to it saying that He came up out of the water, pardon the pun but it doesn’t hold water. If I am wading in the water and go to shore I can rightfully say that I came up out of the water. As I pointed out, you ignored, 3000 were baptized by the Apostles in one day. They could not have been immersed so there goes your argument.

Hi adrift, I don’t want to derail anything but take a short deviation. Are you saying immersion of the 3000 would have been impossible because of the time it would take?
I am interested in your thoughts there.

I was baptised in the believers baptism tradition but not immersed but rather the water was poured over my head. While traveling in Austria we came to a Catholic Chrch in a small resort town that had a separate room on the side of the church that contained a huge painting of Christ’s baptism. It showed John and Jesus standing waist deep in the lake and John was pouring water from his cupped hands over Jesus’ head. I thought it interesting but not necessarily something to build a theology on.

For the sake of arguement consider this. 3000 people ÷ 12 Baptizers = 250 each. Each baptism taking 1 minute would keep them busy for 4 hours. Maybe not totally impossible?

 

[CourtingTex]

Hi adrift, I don’t want to derail anything but take a short deviation. Are you saying immersion of the 3000 would have been impossible because of the time it would take?
I am interested in your thoughts there.

I was baptised in the believers baptism tradition but not immersed but rather the water was poured over my head. While traveling in Austria we came to a Catholic Chrch in a small resort town that had a separate room on the side of the church that contained a huge painting of Christ’s baptism. It showed John and Jesus standing waist deep in the lake and John was pouring water from his cupped hands over Jesus’ head. I thought it interesting but not necessarily something to build a theology on.

For the sake of arguement consider this. 3000 people ÷ 12 Baptizers = 250 each. Each baptism taking 1 minute would keep them busy for 4 hours. Maybe not totally impossible?

On John 3:6, Christ was baptized in the Jordan, which is a river. Romans 6:3-6, states being buried, referring to baptism, meaning a person would have to immersed to have the water over all of their body so Catholics I have cited 2 Bible scriptures about baptism by immersion.

This example further in my mind shows to 2 different interpretations of this scripture. That is why Latter Day Saints to be believe the Bible to be correct, so far as it was translated correctly.