The lds doctrine of the gospel being taught to the dead

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FIVE

This is actually a followup post to a point brought up in THE BOOK OF MORMON Thread by DavyCrocket2003. Since this theme has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, I thought I’d place it in a different thread.

This post has to do with a Christians dismissal of the Book of Mormon partly for a specific doctrine. Their quote is : “LDS teaches a person has a chance to be saved after death, hence the practice of baptizing the dead into the church.”

My point is that He and I are traveling in opposite doctrinal directions based on our personal data and biases. He is in the process of dismissing the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (mormons), while I am in the process of embracing the very same doctrines he dismisses. I wondered if it isn’t differing data sets and prior bias that is responsible for this difference (or lack of better data in both of us). At this point, this is the easiest explanation for me as to why he is repelled and I am so attracted by the same doctrine.

I DID grow up in a native christian church that DID teach the common modern Christian theory that all men must “accept” Jesus before they died, otherwise they were consigned to a terrible fire-filled hell. The Christians in my native church were uncomfortable with this doctrine because of the inherent and obvious unfairness of punishing billions of individuals who died, NEVER HAVING HAD THE CHANCE to accept nor reject Jesus in this life (i.e. those who lived and died without hearing of Jesus, the infant who died, the mentally infirm who died, etc.). Many of us did not truly believe what our pastors taught, but we had no specific or concrete alternative to offer. The Clear, specific and concrete LDS teaching that ALL are given sufficient chance for this knowledge and the accurate mechanism accomplishing this is, to me, another attraction to this LDS doctrine, which I believe mirrors the ancient doctrines on this specific subject.


The principle of apostasy and loss of prior knowledge and change of doctrine has always occurred. Moses laments that the Children of Israel “will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles…they will worship the false gods…they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (The Words of Moses 1Q22). This apostasy of doctrine applies to ordinances as well. For example, regarding baptism, Barnabas observed : “concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves." (Bar 11:1) This same principle of Christian Apostasy which Green Kepi pointed out in Galatians 6, applied to ancient christians as well as the Jews. The Christianities today who know longer understand the original import and essence of Baptism, have simply repeated the same mistake as Israel made.

The Book of Mormon Prophet Mosiah teaches converts to Christ regarding baptism :

“Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?” (Mos 18:10)

Baptism was taught to be of great importance; its underlying nature was that of a witness of a covenant; and the covenant was associated with a bestowal of the Spirit of the Holy Ghost in greater abundance. The pattern mirrors the ancient Christian pattern and refers to several ancient principles of import..




Baptism WAS important to Ancient Christianity :
Early Christianity taught that “Baptism is a great thing.” because if people receive it they will live” (The gospel of Phillip). In his vision of the church as a Tower built upon a lake of water, Hermas asks the angel, “Why is the tower built upon water, madam?”, the angel replies “it is because your life was saved and will be saved through water.” (Her 11:5) This descent into the water of Baptism, was associated with a great blessing and thus it was taught:

“ blessed are those who, having set their hope on the cross, descended into the water, because he speaks of the reward “in it’s season” (Bar 11:8).

Barnabas explained one meaning underlying this scriptural symbolism : “By this he means that while we descend into the water laden with sins and dirt, we rise up bearing fruit in our heart and with fear and hope in Jesus in our spirits.” (Bar 11:11). The increase in hope was connected to the promise and covenant within the ordinance. Because it was a covenant, it was offered only to those who were willing (and thus “worthy&#8221 of making the covenant. Thus the officer of the guard, Annaias “being learned in the law, came to know our Lord Jesus Christ form the sacred scriptures, which I approached with faith” could claim he “Was accounted worthy of holy baptism”. (The Gospel of Nicodemus - Prologue)




In Ancient Christianity Baptism was a symbol of a covenant between God and men :
Just as a seal was a symbolic “Hallmark” or sign that authenticated, confirmed, or attested to a thing, Baptism was seen as a similar symbol :

“For before a man,” he said, “bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water; so they go down into the water dead and they come up alive. Thus this seal was proclaimed to them as well, and they made use of it in order that they might enter the kingdom of God.” ( Her 93:34)

Though baptism was a physical ritual, the ritual was simply a symbol of a spiritual reality. The critical thing that was happening was invisible. The covenant itself was NOT the physical ordinance, but rather it was the internal commitment and changing of the heart of the person. The physical ordinance is merely a sign that a covenant was made. Though the physical ritual was imitated repeatedly by later counterfeits, the actual covenant that took place within the heart; the authority to perform the ordinance; and the associated internal conditions could not (and still cannot) BE imitated nor counterfeited. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were always “written on the tablets of your hearts” (I Clement 2:8) and the Lord knows our hearts....

POST TWO OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FIVE

The LDS have correctly left baptism tied to the doctrine of Free Will. Whether living or dead, the covenant underlying the ordinance remains a personal choice that cannot BE counterfeited. For example, regarding the one who refuses to enter the society of believers it was said :

“ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism… - for only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways…and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity…only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow… - (CHARTER OF A JEWISH SECTARIAN ASSOCIATION 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11)

Annanias could say he was “accounted worthy” of baptism because there were qualifications to the authentic covenants he was willing to submit to. This is inherent in the ancient Christian teachings. For example, this Book of Mormon text gives the accurate promise WITH the authentic conditions

“... blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins." (2 nephi 12:2)

In this ancient model, if there is no authentic belief; no humility (including repentance); no baptism; then no contract or covenant between God and man holds, regardless of a physical ritual having been imitated.

In the authentic covenant, one may claim : “And he shall wash my soul with a laving from the land, And he shall raise me on wings upwards to dwellings. And shall set me in the treasure-house of the Father, where no thieves shall loiter. (Govishn Ig Griv Zindag). However, the counterfeiters became willing to baptize those unfit and unwilling as though God could be fooled into giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost simply to those “made wet”. They did not commit to have FAITH, to become HUMBLE and importantly, to REPENT of their sins before authentic baptism. The authentic promise was made : “in the TRUTH of Your covenant…to cleanse ONESELF from uncleanness…and THEN he shall enter the water (A BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414) The counterfeiters lacked faith, repentance and sincerity, yet still complain when they have no holy Ghost.

Anciently the counterfeit ordinances were noted and those involved were warned :

“If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything and says, “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded". (The gospel of Phillip)

How many times have the athiests and others without faith in modern revelation from God claimed “I’ve prayed but received no answer.” and then conclude the principle themselves are at fault, never mind that they “unplugged the machine.” One simply cannot counterfeit the authentic covenant and commitment God requires for the baptismal covenant to be in full force and, importantly, ALL must be taught concerning authentic covenants which will save them; ALL must have the opportunity to make covenants with God and ALL must be able to receive the blessings of having done so. It is unfair to punish anyone who had no chance to receive the Gospel (and thus avoid punishment).





“THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE”
In describing the “intermediate” world between mortality and Final Judgment Both writers and translators of various early texts use many words to refer to this place such as SHEOL - HADES - SPIRIT WORLD, PARADISE, sometimes "HELL" is used. Occassionally, it is only the context that saves us from confusion. For example the description that “paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible.” (2En 8:5) indicates the ancient meaning for Paradise which moderns often forget. This ancient usage of the word “Paradise” changes the meaning of Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief crucified beside Jesus) that “today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (lk 23:43). It was not “heaven” Dymas was promised, but it was “paradise”, the place between corruptible mortality and incorruptible heaven.

Of mortals it was said, “ Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle.” (The gospel of Phillip)

All who leave mortality through death enter the place in the middle, i.e. Sheol, hades, spirit world, paradise, etc.
The “complainer” Ezra complains regarding the end of his life : “Bewail me, all holy and just ones, because I have entered the bowl of Hades.” (Apoc of Ez 7:1) The glorified Jesus reminds Ezra that he had been there as well : “Hear, Ezra, my beloved one. I, being immortal, received a cross, I tasted vinegar and gall, I was set down in a grave. And I raised up my elect ones and I summoned up Adam from Hades (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4). But more on this later.



ALL WHO DIE GO TO THIS SPIRIT WORLD (THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE)
In this ancient theology, all souls, including the Patriarchs, upon dying, have their spirits placed into this spirit world.

“do you not know that all those who (spring) from Adam and Eve die? And not one of the prophets escaped death and not one of those who reign has been immortal. Not one of the forefathers has escaped the mystery of death. All have died, all have departed into Hades, all have been gathered by the sickle of Death.” (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 8:9; 7)

“ And Death said, “Hear, righteous Abraham, for seven ages I ravage the world and I lead everyone down into Hades – kings and rulers, rich and poor, slaves and free I send into the depth of Hades (T of Abr (rec A) 19:7) .

“For Death deceived Abraham. And he kissed his hand and immediately his soul cleaved to the hand of Death....13...the undefiled voice of the God and Father came speaking thus : “Take, then my friend Abraham into Paradise, where there are the tents of my righteous ones and (where) the mansions of my old ones, Isaac and jacob, are in his bosom... (TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension A) 20:9,13-15)

None of these references refer to the "Hell" that individuals may be sent to after the Judgment, but Hades was also a name for this "spirit world"; the "place in the middle". Another point of confusion regarding Hades is that the experience there is NOT the same for all individuals since individuals are divided according to their degree of righteousness. Thus the ancient texts describe it differently according to who is sent there (i.e the righteous vs the unrighteous). The LDS (mormon) scripture relates the same principle regarding this spirit world and, speaks of these spirits who "mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance, For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage." Thus it was often referred to as a "prison" of sorts.


In describing Sheol, Enoch is shown that it has separate “areas” for individuals to be “assigned to”. In his vision, Enoch asks the angel :

.”For what reason is one separated from the other? And he replied and said unto me, “These three have been made in order that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And in the manner in which the souls of the righteous are separated (by) this spring of water with light upon it, in like manner the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried in the earth and judgment has not been executed upon them in their lifetime,... until the great day of judgment...They will bind them there forever–even from the beginning of the world. ....Such has been made for the souls of the people who are not righteous, but sinners and perfect criminals; they shall be together with (other) criminals who are like them. (1Enoch 22:9-13)

Since the righteous are with the righteous, they seem to adapt to a calm existence, the unrighteous, being grouped with others of their type and having increased awareness of the result of their moral choices become unhappy in their regrets and distress. And, Sheol itself also had a “middle place” according to this ancient model.

POST THREE OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FIVE

In Abraham’s description of Hades, he asks the angel : “Is one who is unable to enter through the strait gate unable to enter into life?...4 And Michael answered...you will enter through it unhindered, as will all those who are like you.”...8And when they went, they found an angel holding in his hand one soul of a woman from among the six myriads, because he found (her) sins evenly balanced with all her works, and they were neither in distress nor at rest, but in an intermediate place.. ( TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM (recension B) 9:1-10)

In this early doctrine, Hades was not simply a place where souls “sleep”, but they are cognizant and communicate and still have free will. Those spirits who had no idea nor concept of God’s plan for them are still allowed to learn and make moral choices just as those who had the gospel given to them while in mortality. They may make the same moral progress as any other individuals. For example : Enoch, describes his vision of Hades/Sheol, teaching that there are those there who teach moral law :

“Come and I will show you where the souls of the wicked stand, and where the souls of the intermediate stand;... He said to me: The souls of the wicked are brought down to sheol....Samki’el is in charge of the souls of the intermediate, to support them and purify them from sin, through the abundant mercies of the Omnipresent One. “ (3en 44:1-3)

It is not merely Samki’el who teaches, but the spirit of men communicate and teach one another as I’ll point out later in the discussion of Christian texts of Christ’s descension into Sheol (hades, hell, paradise, etc, etc). However, the early Christian Saints also understood (as the Latter Day Saints claim), that the spirits of individuals in Sheol (hades, paradise, etc) still possessed intelligent free will and could also accept the blessings of the Gospel as far as they were able. Being “bodiless”, these individuals could NOT be baptized, though they could make the change of heart associated with faith, humility, repentance, etc. From the testimony of the two sons of Symeon, we know that individual believers in the spirit world WERE teachers of others, just as those with bodies teach and testify of the gospel to others.


Whether moral progress occurs to the spirit before mortality, or during mortality or after mortality, still, changes may occur as long as God allows the individual to chose. The ancient saying in this context of moral change occurring in men is that “God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called “true,” dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they are immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water." (The gospel of Phillip) and it is important to know that these bodiless individuals cannot BE “dipped in water”. If they are to receive this covenant as mortal men are able, there must be a mechanism for the bodiless to do so.


The descent of Christ into “the place in between” (sheol, hades, hell, etc.) after his death
Just as the doctrine of Sheol or Hades is mirrored by modern LDS doctrines, the descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks he risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying :

"I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)

The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection :

“Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).

“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel and many other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world. The story continues : “Now when John was thus teaching those who were in Hades, the first-created, the first father Adam heard, and said to his son Seth: My son, I wish you to tell the forefathers of the race of men and the prophets where I sent you when I fell into mortal sickness.”

POST FOUR OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FIVE

Seth then teaches the others regarding the "oil of mercy" that Adam requested and that Seth was told “go and tell your father than after the completion of fifty-five hundred years from the creation of the world, the only-begotten son of God shall become man and shall descend below the earth. And he shall anoint him with that oil. And he shall arise and wash him and his descendants with water and the Holy spirit. And then he shall be healed of every disease....When the patriarchs and prophets heard this, they rejoiced greatly.” This same message was NOT merely for Patriarchs and Prophets, but for all souls there who would listen.


In chapter four, Satan adjure Hades to prevent Jesus from coming if it is possible, “For I believe that he comes here to raise all the dead”....” and while Satan and Hades were speaking thus to one another, a loud voice like thunder sounded: “Lift up your gates, O rulers, and be lifted up, O everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in”...David said: “Do you not know, blind one, that when I lived in the world, I prophesied that word: ‘Lift up your gates, O rulers?’” (Ps 23:7). Isaiah said: “I foresaw this by the Holy Spirit and wrote: ‘The dead shall arise, and those who are in the tombs shall be raised up, and those who are under the earth shall rejoice (ps 26:19) O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory.’” .....the gates of brass were broken in pieces and the bars of iron were crushed and all the dead who were bound were loosed from their chains, and we with them. And the King of glory entered in like a man, and all the dark places of Hades were illumined.”.

The sons of Symeon continue to relate that :

Ch VIII ...the King of glory stretched out his right hand, and took hold of our forefather Adam and raised him up. Then he turned also to the rest and said: “Come with me, all you who have suffered death through the tree which this man touched. For behold, I raise you all up again through the tree of the cross. With that he put them all out. “

Importantly, the sons of Symeon testify :

“All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here. And the love of God the Father and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Cor. 13;14].” (The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell ch XI)

Even Symeons sons were authorized by Michael and sent to teach of the resurrection of Jesus. However FIRST, they were appointed by Michael to “first to go to the Jordan and be baptized.” “There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again.” The ancient Christian pattern was that baptism was required of all who could do it and there was a reason the covenant was given BEFORE teaching or testifying. I do not think even one of a thousand LDS have ever read these early Christian histories, yet they understand exactly what is happening and why these dead who were resurrected were sent to be baptized FIRST before anything else. I’ve never seen another group that “speak” the ancient doctrinal language like the LDS. (How many others even know or understand this stuff?)

There are other ancient Christian texts that also describe the ancient Christian faith in relation to their dead in this spirit world. For example, the ancient text from the diary of a Christian woman Perpetua (The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity) is the story of a new convert to Christianity. The specific doctrines that this new convert was taught and believed in are quite poignant AND, impressively, they continue to mirror the LDS doctrine that the dead may receive the gospel knowledge.

First, Perpetua relates :

“my father, furious at the word ‘Christian,’ threw himself upon me as though to pluck out my eyes but he was satisfied with annoying me;...Then I thanked the Lord for being parted for a few days from my father, and was refreshed by his absence. During those few days we were baptized, and the Holy Spirit bade me make no other petition after the holy water save for bodily endurance. A few days after we were lodged in prison; and I was in great fear, because I had never known such darkness. What a day of horror! Terrible heat, thanks to the crowds! Rough handling by the soldiers! To crown all I was tormented there by anxiety for my baby. (The Passion of Perpetual and Felicity ch three)

Perpetua, who understood the ancient doctrine that all saints were to receive revelation for themselves is asked by her brother to ask God whether they might expect deliverance or ultimately be martyred.

“Then my brother said to me: ‘Lady sister, you are now in great honor, so great indeed that you may well pray for a vision and may well be shown whether suffering or release be in store for you.’ And I who new myself to have speech of the Lord, for whose sake I had gone through so much, gave confident promise in return, saying : ‘Tomorrow I will bring you word.’

Perpetua understands that she may ask God for revelation in a prayer and has every confidence that her prayer will be answered. She then made her request of God, and received a vision that confirmed they would be martyred and “...at once I told my brother, and we understood that we must suffer, and henceforward began to have no hope in this world.”

Perpetua understood also that she could make specific and limited requests for those who were dead in the same way that she could ask for specific and limited requests for the living. Perpetua had another Brother Dinocrates who had died as a child, untaught and unbaptized and, who, she understood to be in the spirit world with all others who had died. Perpetua relates :

“After a few days, while we were all praying, suddenly in the middle of the prayer I spoke, and uttered the name of Dinocrates...And I saw at once that I was entitled, and ought, to make request for him. And I began to pray much for him...At once on this very night this was shown me. I saw Dinocrates coming forth from a dark place, where there were many other dark places...and the wound which he had when he died was in his face still.... “For him then I had prayed; and there was a great gulf between me and him, so that neither of us could approach the other. There was besides in the very place where dinocrates was a font full of water, the rim of which was above the head of the child; and Dinocrates stood on tiptoe to drink. I grieved that the font should have water in it and that nevertheless he could not drink because of the height of the rim. And I woke and recognized that my brother was in trouble. But I trusted that I could relieve his trouble, and I prayed for him every day until we were transferred to the garrison prison, for we were to fight with the beasts at the garrison games on the Caesar Geta’s birthday.

It is obvious that Perpetua could see both that Dinocrates’ ability to access salvific principles was limited, she “saw at once that I (she) was entitled, and ought to make request for him.”. He was thirsty, but could not drink of the living water.

POST FIVE OF FIVE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FIVE OF FIVE

After making a completely appropriate request for Dinocrates to receive the Gospel she relates in Ch VIII that

“During the daytime, while we stayed in the stocks, this was shown me. I was that same place which I had seen before, and Dinocrates clean in body, well-clothes and refreshed; and where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and the font which I had seen before had its rim lowered to the child’s waist; and there poured water from it unceasingly; and on the rim a golden bowl full of water. And Dinocrates came forward and began to drink from it, and the bowl failed not. And when he had drunk enough of the water, be came forward being glad to play as children will. And I awoke. Then I knew that he had been released from punishment.”

Dinocrates was given the chance to drink of living water of gospel knowledge to the extent he desired. Though Dinocrates never fully accessed the font of water, he did access the part of this living water he could access by virtue of the golden bowl of water. Had he been resurrected with Jesus as the brothers of Symeon had, he might have been sent to the Jordan (or to a real and physical font) to have been baptized in the same manner the other resurrected dead were sent to be baptized at the earliest opportunity. Just as Dinocrates had been given gospel truths in the spirit world, the gospel must be preached to ALL others who did not have it in this life. This WAS the ancient Christian Doctrine. The Apostle Peter also understood what Perpetua understood. Thus he said "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)


If I understand it correctly, the LDS are not only providing water from the font, but are offering the entire font to those who, like Dinocrates, did not have the chance to hear or understand or accept the gospel during their lifetimes. Those who have refused the gospel despite understanding the implications, are not offered multiple chances (as John had warned those in the spirit world).

The LDS missionaries who quoted 1 Cor 15:29 to me : “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?” understand that the scripture needs no clever re-interpretation to make sense. They were able to make sense of it just as it stands. I continue to be amazed at the LDS connection to ancient Christian Doctrines. While some are dismissive of these ancient doctrines which the LDS teach, I am becoming increasingly grateful that the LDS are trying to restore this ancient doctrine and it’s benefits to a Christian world who currently teaches there is no hope for the dead who’ve not heard of Jesus.

Clear

Please, if the LDS note ANY statement I make about THEM or their doctrines which I misconstrue or simply do not understand, let me know. I am flabbergasted that the LDS understand and teach the ancient Christian doctrine on salvation for the dead. I’m in awe.

I'll have to return later to look for mistakes and re-format a bit.

 

[Katzpur]

The LDS missionaries who quoted 1 Cor 15:29 to me : “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?” understand that the scripture needs no clever re-interpretation to make sense. They were able to make sense of it just as it stands. I continue to be amazed at the LDS connection to ancient Christian Doctrines. While some are dismissive of these ancient doctrines which the LDS teach, I am becoming increasingly grateful that the LDS are trying to restore this ancient doctrine and it’s benefits to a Christian world who currently teaches there is no hope for the dead who’ve not heard of Jesus.

Please, if the LDS note ANY statement I make about THEM or their doctrines which I misconstrue or simply do not understand, let me know. I am flabbergasted that the LDS understand and teach the ancient Christian doctrine on salvation for the dead. I’m in awe.

Hi, Clear.

As usual, you have provided some tremendous insights into the ancient practice of posthumous baptism by proxy. I don't personally know that any of us on this forum have as extensive a knowledge as you do on the practice. It's funny, but most of us, as we were growing up LDS, learned of Paul's mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, and it always made so much sense when interpreted in the straightforward manner in which it is stated, that it probably never occurred to us to try to twist its meaning to say something else entirely. I assume that my own experience is pretty typical of the experiences of my fellow Latter-day Saints. I was never aware that the rest of the Christian world rejected the practice of baptism by the dead until I was in my late teens. It was just such an obvious truth that I was the one who was flabbergasted to learn that any Christian would fail to see it.

One thing I have always found to be very, very odd is the fact that many Christians deny the need for baptism at all. I have asked them why, since the Bible seems to be so clear on the matter, stating that we must be born of both water and spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, and that, just as belief is an essential principle of the gospel, baptism is an essential ordinance. I have heard people try to get around the need for being born of water by saying that this phrase means nothing more than being born... period, water being representative of amniotic fluid. Why, though, if this was the case, would Jesus Christ have been so insistent that John baptize Him, and pointing out that it was to "fulfill all righteousness" that He needed to receive this ordinance, in spite of having no sins from which to be redeemed?

In my opinion, the real reason some people say that baptism is nothing more than an outward display of commitment to Christ and that it is not essential for salvation, is that they are unable to reconcile the idea of a loving, merciful Father in Heaven with a God who would condemn so many millions of His children to an eternity of unspeakable suffering for having failed to be immersed in water. Since this doesn't make sense to them -- it goes without saying that it couldn't make sense -- they try to manufacture an "out" for God, to find a "loophole" for Him, so that He can simultaneously say we must be baptized to enter His presence and yet turn a blind eye when judging those who did not meet this requirement. In trying to explain the seemingly callous behavior of a God who would deny entrance into Heaven to the person who lived an exemplary life (perhaps even believing in Jesus Christ) but who was never baptized, they will come up with all sorts of reasons why baptism isn't necessary in the first place.

One of their favorite arguments is to bring up the condition of the repentent thief who hung next to Christ on the cross and to point out (erroneously, since it is impossible for us to know for sure) that he wasn't baptized and yet he was promised salvation. Well, that's not quite right. He wasn't promised salvation per se; he was promised that He would see Christ that day in Paradise. We know that Paradise is not the same place as Heaven, because on Easter morning, Jesus told Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven. Presumably, He had, however, actually seen the man on the cross in Paradise on the day the two of them died. If the man had not been baptized (which is admittedly a logical assumption), it would have likely been performed by proxy for him by one of Christ's followers who overheard the Master's words and recognized that this was a believer who needed only to have the ordinance of baptism performed on his behalf.

Finally, one last thought comes to mind. You're aware, of course, of the scripture in which Christ tells Peter, "upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." While many Christians (Catholics, in particular) believe Christ was promising that there would never be an apostasy of His Church, I have heard it explained by an LDS scholar that this was likely a reference to the gospel being taught in the Spirit World. The phrase, "the gates of Hell" would not have had the sinister connotation to the Apostles that it does to Christians today. It would have meant nothing more than "the entrance to the place where the spirits of the departed reside." In other words, not even death could stand in the way of the work of the Church the Savior was to establish. The principles and ordinances he taught would continue to exist in the Spirit World and the dead would not be left without hope in the resurrection.

You say that you are flabbergasted that we understand these ancient doctrines. Believe me, you understand them better than most of us do. We believe and accept the doctrines as presently being taught and recognize that they were taught anciently as well, but you are the one who is amazing. I can't believe the amount of research you have done and how much the information you have shared has strengthened my own testimony of the Restored Gospel.

 

[Clear]

Hi Katzpur ;

"One thing I have always found to be very, very odd is the fact that many Christians deny the need for baptism at all. .... Why, though, if this was the case, would Jesus Christ have been so insistent that John baptize Him, and pointing out that it was to "fulfill all righteousness" that He needed to receive this ordinance, in spite of having no sins from which to be redeemed?

I agree with you that baptism had such importance that Jesus himself made the same baptismal covenant with his Father that all others must make.

In The Gospel of the Hebrews version of Jesus Baptism, it is After jesus Baptismal covenant with his Father that John hears the voice of the Father say to Jesus : "I have this day begotten you. And immediately a great light shone round about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said again unto him: Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then, it is said, John fell down before him and said: I beseech you, Lord, baptize me. But he prevented him and said: Suffer it; for thus it is fitting that everything should be fulfilled. THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS (epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8). Christians tend to point out that Jesus did not need to be baptized for the remission of sins (which Jesus had not committed), but they, in the main, lost the knowledge of baptism as a covenant and promise man makes with God, a covenant Jesus reaffirmed to his father. They also have lost the knowledge (in the main) of the association of the Gift of the Holy Ghost which, anciently was associated with Baptism. Something significant happened to Jesus after having undergone the covenant associated with Baptism. Such statements had a different meaning to the ancient saints since their context for baptism was so different than many modern Christianities. For example, For the LDS, it will also have greater significance and meaning that the Holy Ghost descended upon Jesus immediately AFTER baptism than it will for generic christianity. The vast majority of Christianity no longer understands these relationships, thus one cannot blame them for missing the significance.

I also have wondered about the mechanisms by which Christianity underwent doctrinal evolution and abandoned the many of it's early doctrinal orthodoxies, and then creates and adopts “new and improved” doctrines. For example, Augustine seemed to WANT to BENEFIT his church by creating doctrine which would withstand philosophical argument. He had a very "good" motive for the creation of incorrect doctrines. He does NOT want to do any harm, but he was a religious "Theist-philosopher-leader" creating doctrines rather than a "prophet" conveying doctrines from God to man. The difference is immensely important However, once we are born into and acclimate to these new doctrines, they become the peoples "orthodoxy”.

When barnabas pointed out that Israel “would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves.” (Bar 11:1), I think Israel often felt justified in their creation of new doctrines as substitudes for the ancient doctrines. I have to wonder if Christianity did the very same things for the very same reasons. The Pastor in my native church had inherited a brand of Christianity from his native religious training. He simply did not know whether baptism was needed or not. He created the doctrine that "If YOU think you need baptism, then YOU ought to do it and he oblidged some of the congregation. He had no authority; he had no little idea as to how it should be done; he had no concept of the covenant behind authentic baptism, etc. It was simply a physical counterfeit and none of us were any the wiser because we didn't know any more than he did. There was this doctrinal emptiness that could not be filled by anything more firm than opinion. It is the situation described in the early text Gospel of Thomas : “The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Beseech the Lord, therefore, to send out laborers to the harvest. He said, “O Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the cistern.” (GOSP OF THOM vs 73-74) The symbolism of many who are thirsty for the truth but the normal place to find it, no longer contained it, is a powerful metaphor.

I also have to wonder if, once the early substitute ordinances were no longer accompanied by the same spiritual fruits associated with the early authentic ordinance, then perhaps the ordinance became much easier to drop since it seemed to make little difference as it had in the ancient church. This is another reason why I was impressed with the LDS testimony meetings; their bestowal of the gift of Holy Ghost, etc. When one SEES and feels a difference before and after an ordinance, then it is more difficult to abandon the ordinance that yields obvious fruit. I find that once I gain the trust of my LDS friends, then we can discuss their personal revelations more openly, otherwise it is a “guarded topic” which they do not discuss very openly (as it should be), let such things be mocked and derided by those who do not value them.

“One of their favorite arguments is to bring up the condition of the repentent thief who hung next to Christ on the cross and to point out (erroneously, since it is impossible for us to know for sure) that he wasn't baptized and yet he was promised salvation. Well, that's not quite right. He wasn't promised salvation per se; he was promised that He would see Christ that day in Paradise. We know that Paradise is not the same place as Heaven, because on Easter morning, Jesus told Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven. ....”

The story of dymas (the thief crucified with Jesus) is also in the Gospel of Nicodemus. Referring to dymas (the thief), he is also seen in hades (paradise / Sheol / "the middle place" and :

“The holy fathers asked him: “who are you, who have the appearance of a robber, and what is the cross you carry on your shoulder?” He answered: “I was, as you say, a robber and a thief in the world, and therefore the jews took me and delivered me to the death of the cross together with our Lord Jesus Christ. When, therefore, he hung on the cross, I saw the wonders which happened and believed in him. And I appealed to him and said: ‘Lord, when you reign as king, do nor forget me.’ And immediately he said to me: ‘Truly, truly, today, I say to you, you shall be with me in Paradise’ [Lk 23:43]. So I came into Paradise carrying my cross, and found Michael the archangel, and said to him: ‘Our Lord Jesus christ, who was crucified, has sent me here.”

It is obvious that this Paradise is the same “middle place” of Hades/sheol/paradise/etc. that all other dead were sent to. Dymas asks to be taken from this place “to the gate of Eden”. However, he is told by the archangel to “Wait a short while. For Adam also, the forefather of the race of men, comes with the righteous, that they also may enter in....” Since the Lords time is not our time table, who know how long “a short while” was....10 years, a hundred years, or must Dymas await the later resurrections, etc. I do not know.


I did think the observation regarding “the gates of Hell will not prevail" against the church as a referral Hades (i.e.Sheol/Hell/Paradise), rather than “post-judgment-Hell” was a very astute observation and I think it makes perfect sense. I may look for other correlations now that I’ve heard this.

Clear
vitzzg

 

[jabberwockybruno]

Why is clear quoting so much from the gnostic Bible? Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the gnostic bible as canon. You can't quite non-canon texts to make your argument about what "ancient Christians" believed when those texts have never been used as official church canon.

Don't quote the Gnostic Bible or the Gnostic Gospels and say it's official early Christian church doctrine, because it never was!

 

[Watchmen]

Why is clear quoting so much from the gnostic Bible? Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the gnostic bible as canon. You can't quite non-canon texts to make your argument about what "ancient Christians" believed when those texts have never been used as official church canon.

Don't quote the Gnostic Bible or the Gnostic Gospels and say it's official early Christian church doctrine, because it never was!

Orthodox Christianity fell away. It's possible the gnostic Bible contains Truth Christianity edited out.

 

[Katzpur]

Why is clear quoting so much from the gnostic Bible? Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the gnostic bible as canon. You can't quite non-canon texts to make your argument about what "ancient Christians" believed when those texts have never been used as official church canon.

Don't quote the Gnostic Bible or the Gnostic Gospels and say it's official early Christian church doctrine, because it never was!

That's not the point. Clear isn't saying that any of his sources are canonical. He is merely providing insights into what the earliest Christians believed. The canon developed over a long period of time and changed greatly over the years.

 

[Clear]

“Why is clear quoting so much from the gnostic Bible? Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the gnostic bible as canon. You can't quite non-canon texts to make your argument about what "ancient Christians" believed when those texts have never been used as official church canon. “

Jaberwocky did not really explain what he meant by the term “Gnostic Bible” (unless he’s simply using the title of a popular book by that same name?) However, below is a list of texts I referred to. One might want to actually look at them in the context of my O.P. before making any inaccurate generalizations.

The Book of Mormon
Barnabas
hermes
dead sea charter - DSS
phillip -
testament of abraham (both recension A AND B)
The New Testament (kjv)
1 enoch
gospel of bartholemew
gospel of nickodemus
dead sea davidic psalms
perpetua and felicity
The New testament
The Gospel of the Hebrews
epiphanius
Ezra



“What is in an arbitrary and artificial modern canon” is a different question than “what did the earliest Christians believe?” or what texts they read for doctrine and inspiration since the New Testament “canon” did not exist in these earliest time periods. The reason to use a wide variety of texts that agree on a single subject is an attempt to determine what the largest portion of ancient Christian’s believed during a time period when the canon did not exist. Simply making the point that a canon exists in modern times does not help us much in this discussion. One need simply observe that even modern christians WITH a canon argue endlessly (ad nauseum) as to what is correct doctrine. The existence of an arbitrary and artificial canon has done very little to stop such arguments and confusion.



Jaberwocky, If you disagree with the doctrine that salvation MUST be taught to the dead, or believe the Christians who believed in this were incorrect, it will help if you can be specific and discuss a specific doctrine or text and your specific reasons and specific data for thinking it is incorrect. That would be more helpful for moving you point forward. You could be right in your thinking on a specific point, but one can’t tell without more information from you.


I cannot help but feel that this complaint has it's own unintentional historical parallel regarding a principle which greatly impeded the spread of Christian truths anciently and I believe the principle is just as applicable today.

The idea of individuals who will limit their sources based on what is traditional (e.g. a narrow group of specific texts) rather than what the spirit tells them is true, is an old idea. This inability to let go of an arbitrary tradition limited the spread of early christianity itself. For example, Ignatius complains of the New Testament Era Christians who refuses to believe the authorized servants of God and refused to believe the emerging christian texts (some of which would ultimately be included in our New Testament), but rather these individuals remained tethered to the Old Testament Canon instead of the spirit. Ignatius observed :

“For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archieves I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ” (I-Phil 8:2)

"The archives" Ignatius referred to are what we now call “The Old Testament”. These tradition-bound early Christians had a difficult time simply seeking for truth and unmooring themselves from prior traditions and fully accepting the Christianity the apostles taught. Their prior traditions took precedent over true principles.

The complaint about “source” in the face of the obvious justness and fairness of this doctrine that principles of salvation of the dead MUST be taught for the dead reminds me of a logia of Jesus where he tells the Christians :

“You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they either love the tree and hate its fruit (or) they love the fruit and hate the tree.” (GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 43).

They either honor the doctrine but reject the source, or they reject the doctrine but honor the source.

This is another point that I love about the LDS. They are taught to accept a true principle regardless of the source. If an Athiest says something that the spirit tells them is true, they are able to accept it. THIS is, to me, a wonderful doctrine, and it explains why they are able to make such remarkable moral progress.

Clear

 

[Katzpur]

I did think the observation regarding “the gates of Hell will not prevail" against the church as a referral Hades (i.e.Sheol/Hell/Paradise), rather than “post-judgment-Hell” was a very astute observation and I think it makes perfect sense. I may look for other correlations now that I’ve heard this.

Actually, I don't even think most Christians see the phrase as referring to a post-judgment Hell but as a general reference to "evil" or to "Satanic forces." Most of them that I have talked to about the subject seem to think that Jesus was just saying, "Upon this rock I will build my Church. Neither Satan and his minions nor any evil of any kind will have the power to affect it. In other words, there can never be a general apostasy." Now that is quite a stretch of the imagination, wouldn't you say?

 

[Clear]

Regarding Matthew 16 : 16-19 : “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Clear, in post #7 said : “I did think the observation regarding “the gates of Hell will not prevail" against the church as a referral Hades (i.e.Sheol/Hell/Paradise), rather than “post-judgment-Hell” was a very astute observation and I think it makes perfect sense. I may look for other correlations now that I’ve heard this.”

Katzpur, in post #12 replied : “Actually, I don't even think most Christians see the phrase as referring to a post-judgment Hell but as a general reference to "evil" or to "Satanic forces." Most of them that I have talked to about the subject seem to think that Jesus was just saying, "Upon this rock I will build my Church. Neither Satan and his minions nor any evil of any kind will have the power to affect it. In other words, there can never be a general apostasy." Now that is quite a stretch of the imagination, wouldn't you say?”

I'm Sorry Katzpur, I misunderstood part of your initial point. There could be dozens of different ways differing Christians ascribe differing interpretations and differing meanings to this single and simple saying of Jesus to Peter. I suppose individuals often differ in their ways of finding and ascribing meanings to what is read. In the context of this specific thread, and in keeping with my purpose of discovery of what early Christians themselves believed, I often try to look at early Christian discussions regarding scriptures or doctrines, but if I did not have other data, I would have to rely mainly upon either tradition or my imagination as well.

Though the data regarding Christian Apostasy is obvious, I have wondered if the underlying reluctance of some Christians to consider apostasy in evolving Christianity is their fear as to what it might mean TO THEM, if there was an apostasy (and thus one's modern christian beliefs might be affected by some of apostate doctrines....) To use GreenKepi's example from Galatians 6:6 where Paul observes the ancient saints were already apostatizing from the original Gospel : "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel". I think individuals are able to notice recognize many such scriptures indicating Christian apostasy had been taking place among the early christians and they are able to apply it to others, but then are reluctant to apply those scripture to themselves.... Still Others may understand that all of us HAVE erroneous personal conceptions and SEEK to find out what those errors are and then to spend their lives trying to correct them. This last option is, in my opinion, much more efficient and realistic, but requires the most self honesty.

As an application to the O.P. - Once they realize the inherent unfairness of the doctrine, Most Christians realize that the modern Christian Doctrine that "individuals go to hell if they don't accept Jesus", DESPITE not having a chance to accept Jesus in this life is incorrect in some way (it even FEELS incorrect). It is manifestly unfair as the athiests and philosophers have correctly pointed out for more than 1700 years (or at least since later Christian theists inaugurated and then adopted the doctrine...). When an agnostic discovers this doctrine and then rejects ALL Christian doctrines based on a distaste for this single incorrect doctrine, it damages the credibility and acceptability of other important true principles as well as the people who reject them. This is partly why the LDS restoration of the specific Christian Doctrine that ALL individuals are given adequate chance to understand and make any salvific choice is so important.

Clear
eieifuei

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Why is clear quoting so much from the gnostic Bible? Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the gnostic bible as canon. You can't quite non-canon texts to make your argument about what "ancient Christians" believed when those texts have never been used as official church canon.

Don't quote the Gnostic Bible or the Gnostic Gospels and say it's official early Christian church doctrine, because it never was!

Hi Jabberwocky (that's good poem btw).
It seems that you discount the sources that Clear is referencing. I think it is a good idea to be skeptical of sources that one is not familiar with. I believe that these sources can bring in a lot of valuable perspective on early Christian belief as has been explained, but I am not very familiar with them. Something you and I might be more familiar with is the canonized New Testament. Here is a verse from 1 Peter that seems to clearly indicate the doctrine of teaching the gospel to those who are dead.

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

In 1 Corinthians Paul alludes to what seems to have been common knowledge at that time:

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?

It would seem to me that in the early Christian Church baptism for the dead was common practice, common enough that Paul used it to support the notion of a resurrection. Why would they be baptized for the dead unless the dead were given the opportunity to listen to the gospel and accept it?

 

[Doodlebug02]

This doctrine of the LDS is false. See the following verse from scripture:

(Hebrews 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[jabberwockybruno]

Hi Jabberwocky (that's good poem btw).
It seems that you discount the sources that Clear is referencing. I think it is a good idea to be skeptical of sources that one is not familiar with. I believe that these sources can bring in a lot of valuable perspective on early Christian belief as has been explained, but I am not very familiar with them. Something you and I might be more familiar with is the canonized New Testament. Here is a verse from 1 Peter that seems to clearly indicate the doctrine of teaching the gospel to those who are dead.

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

In 1 Corinthians Paul alludes to what seems to have been common knowledge at that time:

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?

It would seem to me that in the early Christian Church baptism for the dead was common practice, common enough that Paul used it to support the notion of a resurrection. Why would they be baptized for the dead unless the dead were given the opportunity to listen to the gospel and accept it?

That is the only place in the entire Bible that there is any mention of 'baptized for the dead'

In order for us to believe it, we must make sure it does not conflict with other parts of the Bible. In fact it does, because all you will find in the Bible are verses saying that humans get only ONE CHANCE in this life. As soon as they die, they go either directly to heaven or directly to hell, DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200.

I do not deny that this is hard idea to accept. With the purely Armenian school of thought, we would be lead to conclude that people who live their whole lives not hearing the gospel don't even have a chance to go to heaven. An idea being hard to accept is not grounds to reject it, especially if our intuition of "how things should be" clearly conflict with Scripture. The Calvanist school of thought, i.e. the doctrine of predestination, clears up (probably most) of the worries you have, and actually has more support from Scripture. Are you aware of the theology of predestination?

You continually refer to non-biblical texts and say they were used by early Christians. I challenge you to quote ANY protestant or catholic scholar who says ANYTHING besides the new and old testaments of the Bible can/should be used to infer what true Christian doctrine is.

In addition to your sources not being what early Christians believed, some of them are just STUPID. Here is saying 114 from the gospel of Thomas:

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So if we think the gospel of thomas represents what the early Christians believed, then we must conclude that the early Christians thought a woman had to get a sex change in order to get into heaven! ***?!?!?!?

 

[F.Y.B.]

This doctrine of the LDS is false. See the following verse from scripture:

(Hebrews 9:27 KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

What does this have to do with anything? This Bible verse is taken out of context and doesn't even apply in this discussion.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

That is the only place in the entire Bible that there is any mention of 'baptized for the dead'

In order for us to believe it, we must make sure it does not conflict with other parts of the Bible. In fact it does, because all you will find in the Bible are verses saying that humans get only ONE CHANCE in this life. As soon as they die, they go either directly to heaven or directly to hell, DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200.

I do not deny that this is hard idea to accept. With the purely Armenian school of thought, we would be lead to conclude that people who live their whole lives not hearing the gospel don't even have a chance to go to heaven. An idea being hard to accept is not grounds to reject it, especially if our intuition of "how things should be" clearly conflict with Scripture. The Calvanist school of thought, i.e. the doctrine of predestination, clears up (probably most) of the worries you have, and actually has more support from Scripture. Are you aware of the theology of predestination?

You continually refer to non-biblical texts and say they were used by early Christians. I challenge you to quote ANY protestant or catholic scholar who says ANYTHING besides the new and old testaments of the Bible can/should be used to infer what true Christian doctrine is.

In addition to your sources not being what early Christians believed, some of them are just STUPID. Here is saying 114 from the gospel of Thomas:

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So if we think the gospel of thomas represents what the early Christians believed, then we must conclude that the early Christians thought a woman had to get a sex change in order to get into heaven! ***?!?!?!?

Well, I'm not sure if you were talking to me or to Clear here. Both of the verses I quoted are from the New Testament. Yes, I am familiar with the doctrine of predestination. I very strongly do not believe in this doctrine. It goes against everything I know about God. Perhaps I am just naive and don't understand it properly, but the doctrine of predestination seems to run counter to everything I know and believe about God.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

“You continually refer to non-biblical texts and say they were used by early Christians. I challenge you to quote ANY protestant or catholic scholar who says ANYTHING besides the new and old testaments of the Bible can/should be used to infer what true Christian doctrine is.

In addition to your sources not being what early Christians believed, some of them are just STUPID.”

Here is saying 114 from the gospel of Thomas: (114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So if we think the gospel of thomas represents what the early Christians believed, then we must conclude that the early Christians thought a woman had to get a sex change in order to get into heaven! ***?!?!?!?

Jaberwocky, Setting up an inappropriate and misunderstood "strawman example" by misusing ancient text which you do not understand and have taken out of it’s ancient context and then personally interpret it to mean the ancient Christian required a sex change to get into heaven doesn’t only make the texts appear stupid. Trying to show that ancient texts support sex change was an entirely inappropriate example and a transparent attempt to discredit what you are unfamiliar with. It also discredits Christians in the eyes of Agnostics who are looking at the type of intelligence and logic that Christians use when determining what they believe.

You could have taken the time to STUDY ancient texts the christians read to see what legitimate meanings might have underlie such texts. You could have considered corruptions in texts (Thomas has many as do most ancient texts). You could have looked for and compared the text to other versions of the same statement that might have made the text more clear. You might even have simply considered that such texts are something you are unfamiliar with and do not understand. For all of us, our very credibility itself rests on legitimate usage of data.



Jaberwocky (and all of the rest of us) :

I think we should at least attempt to make ourselves familiar with what the early christians read and believed before passing any judgment on them. I understand that non-historians have no mechanism for understanding the ancients since they lack the background data. A non-historians misunderstanding and contextual misuse of a Gospel of Thomas text simply confirms this point. But, that IS just the point. One one must try FIRST to understand the differences between ancient and modern Christians and why these differences exist, THEN rather than blame the ancients, or abuse their use of strange idioms, One could simply admit personal ignorance rather than passing inappropriate judgment (and encouraging others to condemn as well). I understand the innate desire most of us have to believe that our gospel in our day and age is somehow superior, however, the Gospel of Jesus Christ existed LONG before scriptures existed.

In the same way that Jaberwocky strained and misinterpreted the scripture from the Gospel of Thomas to mean that women "must have a sex change to enter heaven", I do NOT think the ancient christians believed in "multiple adequate chances" once a moral decision and commitment is truly made, but rather ancient Christians believed that ALL must have an adequate chance to MAKE moral choices that will affect them, including those who died without a chance to understand and make moral decisions. I believe the ancient Christians were correct that If an infant dies at two months of age, it does NOT go to a fire-filled hell and be tortured forever for not having understood and made moral choices regarding God. I think the Ancient christians were correct about all others who did not have a chance to hear and understand and make an adequate choice as to what they would believe and do.


1) Historical differences in Christianity and texts :
What many modern Christians believe nowadays regarding salvation of the dead is very different to what the Christian Saints in Carthage believed in the first century. What is “canonical” to a modern baptist in Alabama was entirely different to a Christian Saint in Carthage, Africa during the first century. The Christian texts we read are substantially different than their texts. They did not HAVE a “new Testament” since it did not exist - you must try to understand this very, very, simple truth. Yet the early Christians had many, many texts and hymns that they read and used for inspiration and for instruction and it is VERY often made VERY clear by THEIR writings what THEY believed. IN THOSE INSTANCES when THEY themselves, explained very clearly what THEY believed, then THEIR clear textual expositions have a GREAT advantage over two modern christians arguing over what a scripture MIGHT have meant to an ancient Christian Saint.



2) Regarding what texts were used to learn Religious truths from a HISTORICAL perspective :

Just as the sacred texts differ regionally worldwide, they differed in time periods. Early New Testaments included Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Acts of Paul, Wisdom (of Solomon), Clement, Serapion, while most modern New Testaments lack them. Hermas,, Jubilees, I Enoch, etc are STILL IN the Eastern canon while we lack them in the western canon.

In early years Hebrews and revelations were widely contested and still Pauline texts are still viewed with distaste by those who believe Paul was a Heretic. Other contested books included the both timothies, james, the both Peters, the three Johns, Jude, and the didache. Whereas we now include most of them.

Individuals have always placed various strictures upon what they will and will not read in their search for religious truth. Ignatius complained against early Phillipian Saints who would not accept ANY new testament books, and would ONLY look for truth in their prior versions of the Old Testament (i.e. the “archives&#8221 :

“For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archieves I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ” (Ignatius to the Phil 8:2)

ALL of our sacred texts are apocryphal to the extent that we cannot prove authorship. It’s long been known that Moses did not write about his own death nor his obituary in deuteronomy. Do we reject Hebrews because we do not know who wrote it? The western roman canon became accepted and believed over a period of time and it and it is the power of tradition keeps it’s texts inside a somewhat arbitrary canon. The eastern Christian canon developed differently due to different circumstance. Because historians and scholars understand that other texts were used by ancient theist, despite an arbitrary canon, they always have and still use many, many other texts for discussion of ancient belief and doctrine.



POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Even in the late 1400s Columbus used Ezra to compute how far his over-water voyage will be. In his argument over Free will with Luther, The Theist Erasmus used Sirach and defends it’s usage by saying : “I think no one should detract from the authority of this become because Saint jerome indicated that it did not belong in to the Hebrew Canon, since the Christians received it into their canon...”. However, he is speaking of the ANCIENT Christians (Most Modern Christians in the west have dismissed it). Theologians (who determined and created many modern Christian doctrines) not only INCLUDED many other texts in making doctrines, but those same theologians EXCLUDED many books of the canon from important considerations. For example, Luther said “I so hate Esther and II Maccabees that I wish they did not exist.” Luther’s remark regarding James as “an epistle of straw” has become famous as has his remarks regarding the modern N.T. book of revelations. In 1522 he declared that he could not regard it a prophetic or apostolic or even as the work of the Holy Ghost. The worst was that in this book Christ was neither taught nor known. Luther offers that he would not impose his own opinion upon others, but for himself his spirit could not find its way into this book. I might add that Luther makes such remarks IN THE PREFACE of his 1522 edition of the New Testament itself. Even of the book of James he can only admit “was a good man who jotted down some remarks made by the disciples of the Apostles. His book is not to be forbidden, because it does contain some good sayings. (EA, 63, 157) The point is that the “canon” is arbitrary even for those such as Luther who developed doctrines which later christians (i.e. Protestants) hold to.

Just as inclusion into the canon did not guarantee universal acceptance for doctrine, exclusion did not mean universal rejection for doctrine and inspiration. Sometimes books of poor doctrinal stature were defended, often for reasons unrelated to their doctrinal value. Sebastian Castillio was denied ordination on the ground among others, that he rejected the inspiration of the Song of Songs. The Prayer of Manasses (an apocryphal book) was extremely highly esteemed among Christians. In Holbein’s woodcut portraying indulgence traffic on one side and three penitent sinners on the other, one of the penitents who became acceptable to God was King Manasses.

Even inclusion into the canon did not stop early translators from editing OUT spurious, but traditionally important additional text from their New Testaments. For example, Erasmus initially omitted the famous (but spurious) proof text for the Trinity in 1 John v7. Luther refused to add the spurious material to his edition. Unfortunately, the King James translators caved in to pressures and included this spurious addition which remains in it's version. Luther astonishes other scholars by purposefully changing the 10 commandments in his first translation (he left out the one regarding graven images and then split the last one so as to retain 10 commandments) and he maddens them by adding the word "allein" to "glauben" so that he produces a new verse supporting a modern Christian doctrine of faith "alone". The text was (and still is) fluid and changing.



3) A specific example of a text, popular among early Christians : THE PASSION OF PERPETUA AND FELICITY

Since I used Perpetual and Felicity as an example of a very popular ancient Christian text, perhaps I could offer some data to show that Perpetual and the early Christian text based on her martyrdom WERE believed and used and the person herself widely respected and venerated. PERPETUA AND FELICITY were two Christian converts martyred approximately 202-203 a.d. and their bodies were interred at Carthage. Though the story takes place in Carthage, the text of Perptua and Felicity became popular far beyond the African Churches. Holstenius discovered the Latin version and in 1890 Rendel Harris discovered a Greek version.

The passion of Perpetua and Felicity has been used by theologians for years to help determine what early saints believed AND importantly, they used it to develop and to bolster Christian doctrines. For example, Renatus in the forth century uses the Perpetua text to support his claim that unbaptized infants could attain paradise, (if not the kingdom of heaven itself...). Augustine himself (in a strange lapse of logic and data) used the Perpetua text and Dinocrates as an example of one could have been baptized but later estranged from Christ by his father (a pagan).


A) In Carthage a magnificent basilica (the Basilica Majorum) was erected over the tomb of this group of martyrs. The ancient inscription bearing the names of Perpetua and Felicitas has been found. Below is the epigraph, made by William Tabbernee, from the Perpetuas stone in the Basical majorum in Carthage. It says "Perpetua - Sweetest daughter". In context, only the highly respected or venerated or rich were given tombs anciently.

B) Below is a second epigraph from Basilica Majorum in Carthage, that has the names of the several Martyrs who died with Perpetua, (including Felicity and Perpetuas inscriptions). If you look for them, you can see Malvius' name, felicity's name and others from the stone engraving in the Basilica.

C) Below is the stain Glass panel from Notre Dame (Vierzon, France) that is dedicated to Perpetua, indicating the important place she and her story held in the hearts of Christians. The story of Perpetua and felicity was immensely popular among early Christians for hundreds of years.

The Saints Felicitas and Perpetua are still commemorated by name in the second part of the Canon of the Mass. (Mary is commemorated in the first part). Though, their story was initially most popular among the African saints (where their martyrdom took place), their feast, (March 7) came to be celebrated even outside Africa, and was entered into the Philocalian Calendar (a 4th-century calendar of martyrs venerated publicly at Rome). Once Saint Thomas Aquinas' feast was inserted into the Roman calendar on the same day), these two African saints only were commemorated. Their feast is still celebrated by Traditional Roman Catholics. Other Churches also, (including the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church), commemorate these two martyrs.

(Since the poster Holly is episcopalian, I included the following URL out of the Episcopal Church Lectionary: Lessons for the Feast of Perpetua and Felicity : The Lessons Appointed for Use on the Feast of Perpetua and her Companions Martyrs at Carthage, 202, March 7 : Perpetua and her Companions




I hope Erasmus, and Renatus, and St. Augustine qualify as "scholars" that demonstrate that such ancients texts were used and considered in developing Christian doctrines. I also hope this helps to make it more clear that ancient (and not so ancient) Christians used and valued various texts and stories differently than we as modern individuals might use or value them.

I think this is one of the principles that was so impressive to me regarding the LDS (mormons). They are able to "speak the language of ancient Christian texts and doctrines" and thus are in tune with the ancient Christianities and THEIR texts and their doctrines more than any other christianity I’ve ever encountered. This principle, i.e. that there is a modern Christianity that understands and could use the ancient Christian texts in a fluid manner, and step into the ancient Christian context without doctrinal disorientation, was a most amazing discovery for me.

Clear
tweidrue

END OF POST TWO