Is there proof?

[Islander]

That's just the thing though, the info does not just come to those who are walking the straight and narrow - I certainly was not walking the straight and narrow when I had my experience. Not by a long shot. Consider Saul / Paul - what pious deed did Saul do to merit seeing God? Saul was not obeying any eternal laws that's for sure... I know people who do seem to be obeying laws, that do not get anything. It's confusing.

Well, the issue is that God does know the true heart of man. We can only see the outward behavior of a certain person. We have no way of even guessing its true potential but God does know. Saul/Paul was the perfect vessel to carry out the work that he did. An expert in rabbinic law, fluent in Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic. Who would have thought? God did.

The absolutely most unlikely people are called by the voice of God and history is there to prove it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Consider Saul / Paul - what pious deed did Saul do to merit seeing God?

To the contrary, Saul/Paul was living very piously according to the truth that he had received and his good-faith (if horribly flawed) interpretations thereof.

[rodheadlee]

of course there is no evidence. thats why its a religion and not science

I believe there is plenty of evidence, just no proof.

[Dr T]

Hi Changed,

I'm sorry, I've had some things going on the last few days and did not see your post on this thread. It's 12:00 am and I'm tired but I'll be out of town tomorrow so I'll say something on this quote below. I might be home late too so I hope it's ok. I have a few thoughts and instead of cutting and pasting them all, I'll list my thoughts in red.

OKOK – I concede. You are right, I am wrong. Some version of the above is what I have used in the past while chatting with atheists/ people who have never felt the Holy Ghost / people who have had no spiritual experiences.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 46:13 - 14)

I don’t understand the “To others it is given to believe on their words” bit, are we supposed to just believe everything we are told by anyone? Of course not. We are told:

3 … no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 12:3) Good vs. Ok, I have not really looked into it but I wonder if that verse is talking about "being called to God by the Holy Ghost" you know to salvation (which is part of when you call on the Lord Jesus and accept Him as our savior).

IOW, we can’t know anything without the Holy Ghost – and an experience with the HG is proof IMO. OK, please look at what u just said. "...we can't know anything without the Holy Ghost-" That just is not true Changed. For example, when you were a child and learned that 2+2 is 4, I doubt that came to u from the HG. Or how to change the oil in your car etc. Those things are known without the aid of the Holy Ghost. I do believe the all truth is God's truth so I am not trying to take any of that away but what I am trying to say is it is not true that we can't know ANYTHING without the Holy Ghost.

74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father's kingdom where my Father and I am.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:74)

I did not “believe on anyone’s words”. I never had faith.

I really don't think I ever had faith. I am here now because the HG is real and bore witness to me. I mean people said things like that to me before, but it went in one ear and out the other for me, I thought sure sure, touchy feely poetic feel good ****… It never crossed my mind that it could be real. I did not ask for any signs, I did not ask much of anything period. I ended up in an LDS church building to fulfill a school assignment – world religions class, we had to visit a random church then talk about it. I was “obligated” into going, not really of my own free will or anything. And I had my first spiritual experience, and what an experience it was. Scared the living **** out of me! Look up “fear not” and “be not afraid” in the bible, seems the first reaction of many is to be afraid, and for good reason! I mean it just takes a couple of seconds of being in the presence of diety to destroy everything you thought you knew about reality. The world turned upside down for me that day, so much of what I thought was real was not, so much I did not think was real was, everything was changed. I went from not knowing anything to knowing. Skip belief, skip faith, I had no choice, now I know, I can never go back. I guess I can’t tell anyone to “just have faith”, I never did.

1 NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good breport.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the bland of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

17 By afaith Abraham, when he was btried, coffered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the bpeople of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater briches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red asea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not withthem that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of bJephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

(New Testament | Hebrews 11:1 - 33) Good passage Changed. The first vs of "1 NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." is interesting also. I've looked at it a little bit before and do NOT think that "faith" is NOT in things that do not exist because that is just insanity. I see "faith" more better described as something that is believed because of the other evidences that are present. I know it might sound like a symantic issue but for me it's vital for understanding. Again, it is NOT a belief is something that is not there but a belief in something that IS there and justified by everything known.

Perhaps faith has a different meaning than what I though it did? I mean Sarah fed three holy men – she entertained and talked with the Godhead face to face, they told her she was going to have a kid – She did not have “faith” before this, she gave Hagar to her husband because she did not have faith that she would conceive – here it states she had “faith”… well, if you call talking to the Godhead directly “having faith” then faith is a much more powerful word than what I originally thought. Faith is not exactly “belief in something you have not seen” in this case and in the others they list off above. exactly! U confused me with the Sarah fed three holy men-she enterained and talked with the Godhead face to face. I'm sorry but I do not recall where you are getting that. Sarah was told by an angel that she would carry the baby. Maybe I'm thinking of something else but my mind is stuck on that.

Perhaps some people are noble enough to believe / have faith without any kind of actual experience, but do they really have faith this way? I would say that it is possible (for some reason).

3 … no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 12:3) Again the salvation and accepting or maybe the being called to salvation maybe that is what it means that God reached out to us in that way.

It seems it takes more than just wishful thinking to get things rolling… So why are some people not given the HG? Not given proof? I guess they will get proof in the next life, why not in this one? Sad thing. I mean I don't see myself as deserving anything any more than anyone else - quite the opposite in fact...

I do not believe there is a possibility in the next life at all. I take, the verse. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" I think the writer of Hebrews there is talling us that we die on earth and then that's it. So we need to get it right in this life and that's it IMO. Sorry that was Heb. 9:27. OK bedtime but I have one more thing about the HG and people not being able to believe without the H.G. Ok, when did the Holy Ghost come? He came in Acts 2 I think. That was after Jesus left. So what about those that walked with Him. What about Thomas in the upper room (again)? What about all the people He preached to and were saved? Things do not follow there.

Changed, it was fun thinking about this stuff. I am not a theologian or biblical scholar either so I am no expert on this stuff. These are just my thoughts on this subject and thought off the cuff at that so I'm sure we can do more indepth study on it and prayer to get more insight into it but what I laid out to u above make sense to me and the questions I had for u I'd be interested in hearing your responses to. OK, have a great day tomorrow and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks.

[Moksha]

My question is this: is there any proof that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God or from God in origin?

And also, can any of you show me proof that Jesus is the son of God?

No Coke, Pepsi.

These are all matters of faith.

:)

[Brandon-Christensen]

This topic, being that of great confusion, is something that is simply answered. Yes we can prove that The Book of Mormon is of god, but a lecture is nothing without an intent listener. if it is that ye come to find fault in our ways, then it will make no difference how many times we give you "proof" of it, you shall find a way to dispute it. If you come with a real interest, or a good intent, the previous posts should be sufficient for thee.

In the way of Jesus being the son of God, He states it continually in the Bible. You can go search for some way to dispute the Bible if you wish, But we believe it happily. Many in our faith our very happy people. Would you take that happiness from them by seeding disbelief in their hearts? it is a great sin against thine brothers to take their happiness.

[Dr T]

I know there is a lot there but I will just comment on the temple work that u talked about. I do not believe in temple work for the dead. It was talking about something that was being done at the time and was NOT a Christian thing at all and I think that's why it was being addressed. The whole believe/faith thing are different I think. Faith is an active thing and can only show complete faith I think but my brain in not working right now so I can't speak to the difference really (right now). It's sort of like, "Do u believe I can walk across the tight rope?" Ok, I can believe that. "What if I fill a wheel barrow with bricks, the would u believe I can walk across the tight rope without falling?" Ok, maybe might still be the answer. Maybe faith can only be shown when "WE" get in the wheel barrow for the person to carry across the tight rope (as that is showing faith and is active). Does that make sense? I don't know...Like I said, my brain is not working well tonight. It's ok, maybe I'll reread your post and respond sometime. I'm glad you are patient and thank u again for the talk. :)

[rodheadlee]

My question is this: is there any proof that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God or from God in origin?

And also, can any of you show me proof that Jesus is the son of God?

Just curious.

It seems to me that the first thing you need to do is prove to yourself that God exists and then that Jesus Christ is his Son and then get to know them so that you have faith that They love you and that they can and will do what they say. For me it was a very long journey

How can you build your faith?

Paul tells us in Hebrews 11:1 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You must seek out the evidence of things not seen. Like building a case of circumstantial evidence in a court of law. The case will be built on the sum of circumstantial evidence not any single proof.

You said in another post: "If the spiritual interacts with the earthly in any way, it should leave traces of it's activity. For instance, if Jesus himself were to show up in Tokyo, where there would be plenty of eyewitnesses to see it, that would leave proof."

Well, this did happen, just not in Tokyo during your lifetime to the present. So you must search the history books for the historicity of Jesus Christ as well as evidence for the existence of the God that was his Father. Was there really a man named Jesus Christ that was born in Bethlehem, Judea, who preached that he was the Son of God and was crucified for his efforts? Was there really a man named Pontius Pilate who was the Procurator of Judea, during this time period? The questions to be asked are endless. Why are our calendars (Gregorian calendar) reset at the birth of Christ? Were there really Twelve Apostles? What happened to them?

You also said: "If God gives someone information, and that person had no possible way to access that information on their own, then that's proof as well (I.E. the location of buried treasure).

Well. I ask you, where did the modern day country of Israel come from? Why were all of those Jews sent to the ovens by Hitler's Germany? Where did the term "Jew" come from? What was the Jewish diaspora? Who were the Twelve Tribes of Israel? Why are Ten of them lost? Was there really a King Solomon, a King David who ruled over a country called Israel around 1000BC? Why was their country divided in to 2 parts? Was their really a King Nebuchadnezar of Babylon? Was their really a King Daruis the Mede? Who was Cyrus the Great? Who was the prophet Daniel? Who was the prophet Samuel? What is in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I tell you if you find the answers to these you will find buried treasure.

[Hemidakota]

You are sooo nice - I am patient, you did not have to stay up late on my account, that was sweet of you though.

sorry, I was not clear. We can not have a testimony of our Father, Jesus, the HG without the HG.

So "have faith in" is different than "believe in". I think I was confusing these two terms. I think you have to already "believe" that God exists before you can have faith in Him. You can know someone exists and not have faith in them -

I don't have "faith" that my 4yo can drive a car - I "believe" that my 4yo exists, I just don't have "faith" in him sort of thing...

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

(New Testament | James 2:19)

Faith is a bigger word than "believe"...

It's gen chapter 18:

Here is the orig Hebrew on it:

Blue Letter Bible - Gen 18 (KJV)

1 AND the LORD (Yĕhovah) aappeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

(Old Testament | Genesis 18:1)

I don't know of too many angels name "Yĕhovah" do you?

Yĕhovah is the word that is translated "Lord"

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

This is often used in apologetics to discredit the trinity - an instance where the G-dhead is described as 3 different personages. Anyways... point being "Sarah had faith in G-d" - it was not "faith in something she had not seen". She knew G-d existed, had talked to Him face to face, she was equally yoked with her husband.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed

It was that she trusted that G-d was not lying to her I guess. (Well, she laughed about it - but she did not question it ... laughing at it is pretty close to questioning though IMO...

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

(Old Testament | Genesis 18:12 - 15)

Heavenly Father saying "you think this is funny?" It is a little funny - I love this little exchange!

or... they can follow what the Bible and others tell them to do without having felt the HG. If someone asks them "Does God exist" to be truthful, they would have to say "I don't know". Only those who have felt the HG, those who have had spiritual experiences can honestly say "Yes, God exists, I know exists because I have felt His presence." ... It would be a much harder route to follow without the HG. Honestly, I am not sure that it would be possible.

Why do temple work then? That is the whole point of temple work - because this life is not the only place to learn...

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.

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:6)

I don't think the HG was needed when... you know... Jesus was right there in person face to face with everyone . The point is those who believe / have faith / have actually had a spiritual experience directly with one of the members of the G-dhead... With Jesus, with the HG, or face to face with G-d... the point is you have to experience the presence of one of these beings to know ... JMO...

I am no expert either - thanks so much for staying up late :) Hope you have/had a great trip!

Does anyone know the Holy Ghost name?

[gabelpa]

Does anyone know the Holy Ghost name?

Brian.

[Hemidakota]

It figures...no laugh button.

[jolee65]

This guy comes back as someone else every time, I dont care if the IP address is different or not, its the same questions and I was looking for you to pop up again its been what a week and a half.

Its always about if God is or was, also the Christ and is the BoM proven scripture.......

[Dr T]

Darn NO LOL button on that one gabelpa or I would have used it. "Brian" hahahahaha

[Snow]

My question is this: is there any proof that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God or from God in origin?

And also, can any of you show me proof that Jesus is the son of God?

Just curious.

I believe that the proof that God inspired the Book of Mormon is roughly equivalent to the proof that God exists.

Think about your question for a minute. If there is no proof that God exists, how could there be proof that he did something?

Why do you call yourself science4life?

[Islander]

My question is this: is there any proof that the Book of Mormon was inspired by God or from God in origin?

And also, can any of you show me proof that Jesus is the son of God?

Just curious.

I think this poster is gone. I have not seen a reply from him. Beyond that, I think it is a rhetorical question. I suspect he has asked the same questions many times over.

[Dr T]

Hi Changed :)

then... what about all the people who have never held a Bible? who have never lived near a church? who died before knowing? I can't see that a loving merciful just God would not give them another chance at things... I'd agree with everything u just said about GOD. He IS "loving, merciful and just" and that would be my main answer to what u said. I cannot say how it will work but knowing that God is all of those things and that Jesus will judge then I'll just leave it at that. It seems to me that we ought to explore what u are saying there about people and how u view them. God astonishes me in that He wants a relationship with the mere humans that He created. We, as people are not innocent and do not deserve Him to reach out to us but I, for one, am greatful that He does!

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. (New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:19) What do u see that verse talking about? I have not looked at it so I have no idea what the context is all about there.

continuing in the same chapter:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(This whole chapter is making the point that "all mankind" will be made alive, all will have equal opportunity)

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all cauthority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

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?

(all men, all rules, all things will be under Him. The dead will rise, the dead will be redeemed, the dead will be under his feet)

30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:20 - 31)

Yes, just as all fell because of one man, Adam, then all have the opportunity to be saved through one man-Jesus! Praises again! Anyway, look at all of scripture to see what is said. We know that NOT all are saved so what does that mean? All those that are saved are saved through Christ not that all people will be saved. I wrote something about "all" close to after I first came here. Maybe I'll find it cause it shows that "all" does not always mean "all" as in "every" but anyway I think I explained what I meant well enough above.

I don't see this chapter as talking about strange practices of unbelievers at the time, the whole chapter is about redemption.

Salvation for the Dead (see also Baptism; Baptism for the Dead; Genealogy and Temple Work; Salvation)

Isa. 24:22 in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited

Isa. 42:7 bring out the prisoners from the prison

Isa. 49:9 (1 Ne. 21:9) say to the prisoners, Go forth

Isa. 61:1 (Luke 4:18) proclaim liberty to the captives

Obad. 1:21 saviours shall come up on mount Zion

Zech. 9:11 sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit

Mal. 4:6 (Luke 1:17; 3 Ne. 25:6; D&C 2:2; 110:15; JS-H 1:39) turn ... the heart of the children to their fathers

Matt. 16:19 (D&C 128:8) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven

Luke 4:18 preach deliverance to the captives

John 5:25 dead shall hear the voice of the Son

Rom. 14:9 Lord both of the dead and living

1 Cor. 15:19 if in this life only we have hope in Christ

1 Cor. 15:29 why are they then baptized for the dead

Heb. 11:40 (D&C 128:15) that they without us should not be made perfect

1 Pet. 3:19 preached unto the spirits in prison

1 Pet. 4:6 gospel preached also to them that are dead

(Topical Guide | S Salvation for the Dead:Entry)

What use would it be to preach to "them that are dead" if the dead rise not at all? What use?

Good question. Again, I have not looked at this and would have to put time into understanding what is said there and compare it to the whole of scripture. I agree with everything up there though and do not see it as saying how Christ reached out to us all as we were all dead to sin. But like I said, I'd have to really look into that concept.

your rope analogy reminded me of a C.S.Lewis quote:

"You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by the rope over a precipice. Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it? The same with people…Only a real risk tests the reality of a belief. "

—A Grief Observed C.S.Lewis

Perhaps "faith" is belief that is tested...

"proof" leads to belief, actions lead to faith.

Oh, that's cool. I like how u said that. I have not read that book Changed. I think I've only read two or three of his books maybe four but not that one. Maybe I'll pick that one up and add it to my "to read list" :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

It does seem to me that we need the "proof" of a witness from God that these things are true... otherwise we are just "leaning unto our own understanding" trying to decipher the philosophies of men mingled with scripture...

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 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.

Hmmm...that is interesting. What does that mean really? That is when he was asking Peter who he said he was and what other say he is. Is that right? What about the Holy Spirit there? Thank u again for your thoughts Changed. :)

[Dr T]

We can come to learn things in the next life too is what I think it is saying. Of course we are accountable for what we know, if we have access to info, we are responsible for following it, figuring things out. But if we do not have access to it, we will be given a chance to repent, come to Christ, receive all the saving ordinances (baptism etc.) after we die.

Who goes where is outlined rather wll in DC 76 I think

here is a link, see the following verses:

Doctrine and Covenants 76

11–17, All shall come forth in the resurrection of the just or the unjust;

30–49, Sons of perdition suffer eternal damnation; all others gain some degree of salvation;

50–70, The glory and reward of exalted beings in the celestial kingdom;

71–80, Those who shall inherit the terrestrial kingdom;

81–113, Status of those in the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial glories;

114–119, All the faithful may see the vision of the degrees of glory.

yes, I agree, not all will be saved - but "all" will have an equal opportunity. Anything else would not be just. I agree with that :)

It is only 4 chapters long, and the first two chapters are rather depressing. It is the notes Lewis took when he lost his wife, it is unlike any of his other books, his other books are just his beliefs, this one is his experience, and it is not pretty. Wow, only 4 chapter? I'll pick it up. Thanks for the rec

not from Lewis but it fits:

I walked a mile with Pleasure,

She chattered all the way,

But left me none the wiser

For all she had to say.

I walked a mile with Sorrow

And ne'er a word said she,

But oh,the things I learned from her

When Sorrow walked with me!

The last two chapters are neat though. If you read it, watch the movie "Shadowlands" first so you know who "H." etc. is (he just uses initials in the book). Also, be sure to get a copy with the step-sons' intro. Thanks for those recs too.

Everyone will go through losing someone, everyone needs to read this book IMO. Sounds good Changed. :)

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 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.

18 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.

19 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.

(New Testament | Matthew 16:13 - 19)

The Catholics use this to say theirs is the church - the church was not founded on Peter though, it was founded on Jesus, on revelation - "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." this is what the church is founded on - not the church of some any person, the church of Jesus Christ...

Yes I looked into that too and agree with what u r saying. It's on revelation! (and not apostles but solely on Jesus-Amen and AMEN

[Justice]

It was talking about something that was being done at the time and was NOT a Christian thing at all and I think that's why it was being addressed.

Have you really studied the context of the scripture you're referring to?

Let's walk through 1 Corinthians 15 slowly.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

He is speaking about Christ dying and being resurrected.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Some were saying there is no resurrection. It was mostly because people from other cities, "Gentile" cities, were converting to the gospel. The church in Corinth was in Greece, and they typically did not believe in the resurrection, or life after death.

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

He was teaching them that if there was no resurrection, then preaching "Christ risen" was a pretty dumb thing to do. They cannot believe both that Christ was risen and there was no resurrection.

This is the entire basis of the letter Paul wrote to the saints in Corinth.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

He speaks faith based logic in that their whole purpose was to preach Christ raised from the dead, and that if they taught that, and they said they were eye witnesses of Christ being raised, then they were liars before God. And, even worse, if Christ was not risen then the faith of every Christian is vain, for why preach lies of the resurrection if Christ was not resurrected?

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Basic Christian teaching that the fall of Adam brought death (separation of body and spirit) to mankind, and that the resurrection of Christ brings a restoration of the body and the spirit together to an immortal state. Christ overcame death brought by the fall, or resurrection.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Speaking that death will be the last thing Christ will overcome, meaning that the resurrection of the wicked is the last thing that will happen before the judgement.

To illustrate this, he asked 2 questions based on truths they understood:

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?

In other words, if there is no resurrection or life after death, which he was trying to teach, then why do you perform the baptism ordinance for those who died without a knowledge of Christ? How can it mean a false notion if he was using it to preach a truth? How do you prove a truth by using a lie as an example? The lie would only serve to disprove the truth you were trying to teach.

In other words, if he was using a false teaching to teach the truth, how does that prove the truth? It doesn't make sense to say "if there is no resurrection why are they baptized for the dead?" if baptism for the dead was recognized as a false teaching. So, if the baptism of the dead was a false teaching, how does it prove the first?

It doesn't, and it would be an idiotic thing for an Apostle of the Lord to even say.

30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

They DO stand in jeopardy every hour. Each person can choose to reject Christ and return to their life of sin any hour.

This affirms both truths, that they practiced baptism for the dead, AND that they did not believe once saved always saved.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Love that C.S. Lewis quote, changed... thanks.

[Dr T]

Yes I understand all of that Justice. Thank u for that. By looking at this passage and having read about this before the following things stand out to me:

First, there is no other passage in the Bible which indicates that Christians should be baptized for the dead. It is never commanded. We never see this practiced in the Book of Acts or elsewhere in the New Testament. This is a unique occurrence in Scripture.

Second, we would surely be foolish to build a doctrine on this one obscure reference, when it is not clear who is being baptized, by whom, or for what purpose. We do know from Peter’s own words that the false teachers were those who seemed to major on twisting the obscure elements of Paul’s teaching (2 Peter 3:14-18).

Third, Paul speaks of “those who are baptized for the dead.” He speaks in the third person. Contrast this with the first person pronouns employed in verses 30-32. We are not told that Paul has ever been baptized for the dead or that anyone in particular in the church has done so. Somebody is being baptized for the dead, but we do not know who. It seems safe to say it is somebody other than the apostles.

Fourth, we are told by Luke that many in Corinth believed as a result of Paul’s teaching and that many were baptized (Acts 18:8). We also know that very few were actually baptized by Paul (1 Corinthians 1:16), a fact which pleased Paul in retrospect. In this same passage at the outset of this epistle, it does seem evident that baptism was one of the things in which some took pride and over which some took sides. Baptism then did seem to be a problem at Corinth. It seems to have played too important a role to some. It may have been more than a symbol and thus became a “work” in which some took pride.

Given all of these observations, I am inclined to understand verse 29 as follows. Baptism had taken on too much meaning for some at Corinth. Some looked upon baptism as the Judaisers looked upon circumcision, as a “work” performed by men which was necessary to salvation. If baptism was wrongly considered necessary for salvation, then surely those now dead, who may not have been baptized when they were saved, would be thought to be in trouble. How could this problem be remedied? By a vicarious baptism, a baptism enacted on behalf of the one who had already died without being baptized. Paul is not advocating this kind of baptism; he is showing the inconsistency of this behavior apart from a belief in the resurrection of the dead. If those who were being baptized for the dead were also those who rejected the resurrection of the dead, Paul is showing how inconsistent their practice is with their doctrine. If those being baptized for the dead believe that the dead are not raised, what value is there in (wrongly) being baptized for one who has already died? Their behavior (baptism for the dead) is not consistent with their belief (there is no resurrection of the dead).

[Dr T]

Here are thoughts from David Guzik:

a. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead to not rise at all? What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different attempts to interpret it.

i. The plain meaning of the original language is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died. Paul’s point is “If there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? What is the point if there is no life after death?”

ii. Significantly, Paul does not say, “we baptize for the dead,” but asks what will they do who are baptized for the dead, and Why then are they baptized for the dead? Therefore, Paul is referring to a pagan custom of vicarious baptism for the dead. “Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead.” (Mare)

iii. Paul certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

iv. Paul’s point is plain: “The pagans even believe in the resurrection because they baptize for the dead. The pagans have the sense to believe in resurrection, but some of you Corinthian Christians do not!”

[Justice]

Paul is not advocating this kind of baptism; he is showing the inconsistency of this behavior apart from a belief in the resurrection of the dead.

All you have to do is read the scripture.

He is asking if the dead don't rise, then why is there baptism for the dead?

To show inconsistency using this kind of logic, you can't use a falsehood to teach a truism. A lie cannot validate truth. It never has been able to, and it never will be able to.

If baptism for the dead was a false teaching, how do his comments affirm the reality of the resurrection? It makes no sense.

I can only assume you did not read my entire post. I guess you figured you have heard the argument before, so why read it again.

Modern revelation affirms the reality of Paul's words as they stand. He was using a valid ordinance, and one that the listeners understood as valid, to try to convince them there is a resurrection. Any other interpretation is a reach, and a twisting of the words.

To say it can't be true because it's only mentioned once is the same bad logic as saying he's using a lie to teach a truth.

[Justice]

What I find silly about the comments from David Guzik that you posted is that if the people at Corinth did not believe in life after death (resurrection), why in the world would they practice a "false pagan baptism" for the dead?

That's a practice in futility.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Maxel]

Here are thoughts from David Guzik:

a. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead to not rise at all? What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different attempts to interpret it.

i. The plain meaning of the original language is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died. Paul’s point is “If there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? What is the point if there is no life after death?”

ii. Significantly, Paul does not say, “we baptize for the dead,” but asks what will they do who are baptized for the dead, and Why then are they baptized for the dead? Therefore, Paul is referring to a pagan custom of vicarious baptism for the dead. “Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead.” (Mare)

iii. Paul certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

iv. Paul’s point is plain: “The pagans even believe in the resurrection because they baptize for the dead. The pagans have the sense to believe in resurrection, but some of you Corinthian Christians do not!”

I think David Guzik is silly! His intepretation seems to be one of those '30+' attempts he admits have been undertaken before him to interpret the scripture. Also, his entire premise rests on the almost baseless idea that Paul's use of 'they' somehow proves Paul was referring to another people. I'm no expert on grammar or Paul, but it seems to me that hinging an entire chunk of scriptural exegisis on one small word and the circular belief that it was only pagans who baptized for the dead is, in a euphamistic word, silly. His argument rests most strongly on his own interpretation of the scripture, instead of drawing on actual examples or valid historical arguments. Guzik may have more of a point than he is presenting- for example, drawing from Paul's original Hebrew wording, writings of early church leaders, etc.- but the exegises he presents, in the form he presents it, is silly.

I offer, as counterpoint, two of John A. Tvedtnes' papers, Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale (the first paper, presented 'at an international scholarly conference in 1983, where it was warmly received') and Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity (the second paper, which expands in detail on the first)- which reference and draw on actual historic material (including the wrtings of Epiphanius and Tertullian, two early church fathers) and not just his own opinion- although admittedly it is his own opinion that prompted him to take the direction he did with the paper.

[Dr T]

All you have to do is read the scripture.

He is asking if the dead don't rise, then why is there baptism for the dead?

To show inconsistency using this kind of logic, you can't use a falsehood to teach a truism. A lie cannot validate truth. It never has been able to, and it never will be able to.

If baptism for the dead was a false teaching, how do his comments affirm the reality of the resurrection? It makes no sense.

I can only assume you did not read my entire post. I guess you figured you have heard the argument before, so why read it again.

Modern revelation affirms the reality of Paul's words as they stand. He was using a valid ordinance, and one that the listeners understood as valid, to try to convince them there is a resurrection. Any other interpretation is a reach, and a twisting of the words.

To say it can't be true because it's only mentioned once is the same bad logic as saying he's using a lie to teach a truth.

It makes sense to me. He puts the up side by side to show the inconsistency of their behavior with the belief of the resurrection. Something that is inconsistent with the rest and trying to build or actually building something off of that is what the problem is or could be-that's all.