Was Jesus a Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_BrianH
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _BrianH »

consiglieri wrote:
BrianH wrote: While not a "doctrine", the practice of full immersion baptism was never "lost" in the first place. We have clear and unmistakable accounts of this practice in the Bible and in volumes of exta-biblical accounts beginning in the earliest days of the Christian church (see the 2nd C. Shepheard of Hermas for example where you will find a detailed account of this practice). Having never been lost it is impossible for the LDS church to have "restored" it.


Careful about citing the Shepherd of Hermas as authoritative, big fella.

Careful about actually READING the posts to which you respond. I never said the Shepherd of Hermas was "authoritative". I said that it contains a description of full-immersion baptism thereby demonstrating the fact that it is well-documented and was therefore never "lost".

This particular volume of the Apostolic Fathers also teaches baptism for the dead.

This was lost.

The LDS Church restored it.


Game. Point. Match.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri


Ignoring your little pre-victory parade, I just have to ask: please SHOW ME where the Shepherd of Hermas teaches baptism for the dead.

I can hardly wait.

-BH

.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _consiglieri »

BrianH wrote:Ignoring your little pre-victory parade, I just have to ask: please SHOW ME where the Shepherd of Hermas teaches baptism for the dead.

I can hardly wait.



Why should I bother when you have already said you won't accept anything in it (unless it agrees with your beliefs)?

It should be noted that The Shepherd of Hermas was actually contained in several early lists of authoritative books before the New Testament canon was set in stone in the latter half of the fourth century.

And if you don't know where it is, I can only presume you have never actually read The Shepherd.

First we need to lay some groundrules, Brian.

If I can show you where The Shepherd teaches baptism for the dead, will you agree that Joseph Smith restored an early Christian teaching and practice that was lost?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_BrianH
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _BrianH »

liz3564 wrote:
consiglieri wrote:I am sure you are getting ready to respond to why it is baptism for the dead is taught in the Shepherd of Hermas, Brian.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri


*reaching for the popcorn*


So then what ...you can't show me any reasons to think that this doctrine is taught in the Shepherd of Hermas?

That's what I thought. I read the SoH several years ago and found no such thing. You appear to be just posting the usual empty bluster, probably based on the usual boiler-plate nonsense prepared by LDS "scholars" for consumption and copy-paste application by unquestioning Momrons.

Thanks anyway.

-BH

.
_BrianH
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _BrianH »

consiglieri wrote:
BrianH wrote:Ignoring your little pre-victory parade, I just have to ask: please SHOW ME where the Shepherd of Hermas teaches baptism for the dead.

I can hardly wait.



Why should I bother when you have already said you won't accept anything in it (unless it agrees with your beliefs)?

It should be noted that The Shepherd of Hermas was actually contained in several early lists of authoritative books before the New Testament canon was set in stone in the latter half of the fourth century.

And if you don't know where it is, I can only presume you have never actually read The Shepherd.

First we need to lay some groundrules, Brian.

If I can show you where The Shepherd teaches baptism for the dead, will you agree that Joseph Smith restored an early Christian teaching and practice that was lost?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri


Will I agree that Joseph Smith "restored" an early Christian teaching and practice? I will allow that such a proposal can be rightly elevated from the moronic to the possible, yes.

OTH when you fail, will YOU admit that your claim is false when what you show turns out to be the usual failure to understand the text itself based on the usual grammar, genre and context errors so often committed by the "scholars" who prepare the boilerplate responses for Mormon consumption?

-BH

.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _Runtu »

BrianH wrote:So then what ...you can't show me any reasons to think that this doctrine is taught in the Shepherd of Hermas?

That's what I thought. I read the SoH several years ago and found no such thing. You appear to be just posting the usual empty bluster, probably based on the usual boiler-plate nonsense prepared by LDS "scholars" for consumption and copy-paste application by unquestioning Momrons.

Thanks anyway.

-BH

.


Found this little tidbit:

Some scholars are too cautious to link 1 Peter 3:19 on Christ preaching in the spirit prison with 1 Peter 4:6 on the general preaching to the dead. But the key words for preaching in those verses are kerusso and euangelizo, the only two words in the New Testament that are consistently used of the missionary proclamation of the gospel. These synonyms show that Peter is talking of similar events. God cannot reach all his children without sending messengers to the worlds of the living and of the dead. And the two Greek words just mentioned constantly refer to teaching baptism as well as faith. For instance, nearly every baptism mentioned in Acts is preceded by one of these words, generally translated "preach" or "preach the gospel." Christ's commission to the Twelve at the end of Matthew and Mark commands baptism as the immediate result of the preaching. Thus, Peter virtually suggests Paul's baptism for the dead in his verbs for preaching to the dead, the same verbs that are found in the above early Christian references on Christ's visit to the spirit world. In turn, Paul virtually suggests Peter's concern for the living and the dead in the context of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29, as already discussed in the chapter treating that letter. And the two interrelated doctrines come together in the document known as the Shepherd of Hermas, which derives its name from a series of visions and teachings from an angel as a shepherd. In the second century the Muratorian Canon gives the date as midcentury: "But Hermas composed the Shepherd quite recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother, Pius, the bishop, occupied the chair of the city of Rome."

The Shepherd of Hermas is not a source for new doctrine, for its main theme is preserving the faith. Its author is dutiful and conservative, seeking to hold to what he had been taught in a Christian career going back to the turn of the century and Clement of Rome, whom he mentions.... Thus, he is a source for the common doctrines and practices of the Christian Church. And he welds preaching to the dead to baptism for the dead. These doctrines come in the allegory of building the tower, which the angel defines as the Church [Anderson cites The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16.2-4 (Loeb Classical Library, Kirsopp Lake trans.) I have a slightly different translation with essentially the same content: The Third Book of Hermas, Similitude 9, in The Lost Books of the Bible, Alpha House, Inc., Newfoundland, 1926, reprinted by World Publishing, New York, 1972, pp. 247-267; see especially verses 150-159, p. 258. Another translation is available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm.] The three lower courses of stones represent the foundation generations of the righteous men of the Old Testament, with the last and largest number of 40 representing the "prophets and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God." These have the seal, clearly defined as baptism by (1) the requirement "to come up through the water that they might be made alive"; (2) the quotation of John 3:5, referring to water as the way to "enter into the kingdom of God"; and (3) the summary, "the seal, then, is the water." As the following passage begins, Hermas's messenger is explaining that the pre-Christian dead - "who had fallen asleep" - were also baptized; this is followed by the explanation that the New Testament priesthood bearers had been baptized again to make this possible [Anderson cites Sim. 9.16.3-7; see also The Third Book of Hermas, Sim. 9, vs. 152-160]:

"So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'"

"Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

Some parts of the above message are obvious, and others are clear in the light of Hermas's purpose in writing. Since the above words explain the vision-parable or allegory, they relate to Christian doctrine and practice. The plainest point is that after death the "apostles and teachers" continued their missionary labors in the spirit world, adding the dimension that preaching to the dead continued after Christ. The consequences of that doctrine are revolutionary. Thus, the spirits do not merely receive an announcement of Christ's victory; continued preaching assumes individual growth there and acceptance of gospel principles beyond simple belief. Thus, the emphasis on baptism for the pre-Christian righteous logically fits the scheme. But what kind of baptism? . . .

Hermas's book proves that he is a Christian traditionalist, and the spirit-world passage underlines the point by three repetitions of the words of John 3:5 on entering the kingdom of God through water. He is so bound by scripture that he cannot imagine salvation without baptism, and he obviously writes with consciousness of Peter's words on preaching in the spirit world. Thus, Hermas also writes with awareness of Paul's reference to baptisms of the living for the dead. Those "fallen asleep" in his passage are, of course, the dead, and his subject closes with plain words about the righteous who had died without baptism. So Hermas is discussing what Christians believe about baptism for the dead; so this "pious and conscientious" author certainly refers to the known baptism for the dead and not the unknown. That explains his question to the angel, for he found it contradictory that the New Testament priesthood leaders went into the deep again, the symbol of their personal baptisms. If they would merely baptize others, there could be no puzzle. So Hermas's question was really about rebaptism of those already baptized. The explanation was that both groups go into the water, but the effect of remission of sins is only for those dying without baptism. This cooperative baptism is proxy baptism, the only type mentioned by the "apostles and teachers" that he refers to. The joint immersion in water is part of the symbolism not expressly interpreted, referring to the earthly baptisms that were a shared experience of the living and the dead.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _Mike Reed »

_BrianH
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _BrianH »

Uh ...perhaps I missed it, but I don't see anywhere that your unidentified source points out that Hermas does indeed teach the doctrine of baptizing living people in place of dead people.

Please do point it out if you think its there.

-BH

.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _consiglieri »

BrianH wrote:Will I agree that Joseph Smith "restored" an early Christian teaching and practice? I will allow that such a proposal can be rightly elevated from the moronic to the possible, yes.


Seems, madam? Nay, it is! I know not seems.


You will find it, as Runtu has pointed out, in Parable 9 of the Shepherd of Hermas.

This parable is extended and rather long, and though I encourage you to read it in its entirety, I will lead up to this quoted portion by noting The Shepherd is shown in vision a building made of stones which is identified as the Church by The Shepherd's angelic tour guide (sound like Nephi's Vision?) and the stones of which the building is constructed are identified as various types of people who constitute the Church.

Some of the stones were shone as coming up from the deep and fitted into the building.

The Shepherd asks what this means:


15[92]:4 "But the stones, Sir," say I, "that came from the deep, and were fitted into the building, who are they?" "The first," saith he, "even the ten, that were placed in the foundations, are the first generation; the twenty-five are the second generation of righteous men; the thirty-five are God's prophets and His ministers; the forty are apostles and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God."

15[92]:5 "Wherefore then, Sir," say I, "did the virgins give in these stones also for the building of the tower and carry them through the gate?"

15[92]:6 "Because these first," saith he, "bore these spirits, and they never separated the one from the other, neither the spirits from the men nor the men from the spirits, but the spirits abode with them till they fell asleep; and if they had not had these spirits with them, they would not have been found useful for the building of this tower."

15[92]:1 "Show me still further, Sir," say I. "What desirest thou to know besides?" saith he. "Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the stones come up from the deep, and wherefore were they placed into the building, though they bore these spirits?"

15[92]:2 "It was necessary for them," saith he, "to rise up through water, that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of God, except they had put aside the deadness of their [former] life.

15[92]:3 So these likewise that had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man," saith he, "has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth life.

15[92]:4 The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive. "thus to them also this seal was preached, and they availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God."

15[92]:5 "Wherefore, Sir," say I, "did the forty stones also come up with them from the deep, though they had already received the seal?" "Because," saith he, "these, the apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to them that had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them the seal of the preaching.

15[92]:6 Therefore they went down with them into the water, and came up again. But these went down alive [and again came up alive]; whereas the others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead and came up alive.

15[92]:7 So by their means they were quickened into life, and came to the full knowledge of the name of the Son of God. For this cause also they came up with them, and were fitted with them into the building of the tower and were builded with them, without being shaped; for they fell asleep in righteousness and in great purity. Only they had not this seal. Thou hast then the interpretation of these things also." "I have, Sir," say I.


Let Hercules himself do what he may,
The cat will mew, and dog will have his day.




All the Best!

--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Stormy Waters

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _Stormy Waters »

Why should anyone should feel obligated to answer your challenges? You certainly feel no obligation to answer any challenges to your own belief system.
The Bible is a prerequisite for the claims of Mormonism. If the Bible if false, then none of the rest matters. So it is completely relevant no matter how many times you type 'IRRELEVANT' in all caps.
You are a coward and a bully. You know the Bible would be a total bitch to defend, so that's why you refuse to do it.
_BrianH
_Emeritus
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:59 pm

Re: Was Jesus a Mormon?

Post by _BrianH »

That's it?

Did I miss something?

Okay ...so where does this excerpt teach baptism for the "dead" - I mean in the biological sense used by Mormons. I mean ...I see where it follows the New Testament doctrine of descending "dead" in the spiritual sense into the water. I do not see where it says anything like what Mormons practice: proxy baptsim by living persons for dead, unsaved persons.

-BH

.
Post Reply