faith4 Posted August 11, 2014 Report Share Posted August 11, 2014 Wow, I am impressed Anatess and AndyPG! Thank you for helping me out, I didn't even realize this thread was being used again (I don't receive any notifications about replies from threads I've been active in, so sometimes I completely forget to check). Anatess, thank you also for helping me in some of the other threads, I really appreciate it. I've seen and heard all these arguments before, it's not new to me, but it was too much too fast, and I allowed myself to get too emotional as well and am trying to just back away, lol. I choose to stay b/c I know that most of the members here are very respectful and I really do enjoy the questions posed on this forum. Many of the questions are the same ones I have, but do not wish to ask my friends & neighbors (some may be sensitive) out of respect for them. I have found that this is the best place to find answers to my questions & understand your beliefs from devout members perspectives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Resurrecting this thread for a fresh question. Why was Jesus baptized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 There are a couple of reasons that tend to get cited. First, it functions as an "Epiphany" whereby he is revealed as the messiah (voice from heaven and all that). Further, the opening of the heavens is seen as symbolic of his opening the heavens which Adam's sin had closed Next, by participating in that ritual which is meant to cleanse one of their sins, Christ is seen to have identified himself with the sinners who he came to sin. From a more nuts and bolts standpoint, it is considered a necessary component of his subsequent death and resurrection. Christ in that inaugural baptism took upon himself the sins of the world, the sins which future Christians would bring to the baptismal waters, which he would carry to the cross. Because of this, in our baptism, we become participants in the cross and resurrection. Our sins, and more importantly our sinful nature, die with Christ on the cross. We emerge from the waters as a new creature in Christ. I realize that much of this may seem highly symbolic, but in Catholic sacramentology there's a concept called "ex opere operato," meaning "from the work worked." Basically all our sacraments are visible signs signifying some invisible act of grace which is occurring. The paradoxical thing is that we also believe that the sign causes what is signified. Baptism symbolizes our participating in Christ's death and resurrection, but through the symbol it really causes us to enter into that participation and receive the associated spiritual graces. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 P.S. LDS and Catholic have the same answer to the question of why Christ was baptized. And yes, it is primarily to fulfill all righteousness and everything taught in 2 Nephi 31. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 P.S. LDS and Catholic have the same answer to the question of why Christ was baptized. And yes, it is primarily to fulfill all righteousness and everything taught in 2 Nephi 31. I'll have to disagree. I don't know any LDS who believe From a more nuts and bolts standpoint, it is considered a necessary component of his subsequent death and resurrection. Christ in that inaugural baptism took upon himself the sins of the world, the sins which future Christians would bring to the baptismal waters, which he would carry to the cross. Because of this, in our baptism, we become participants in the cross and resurrection. Our sins, and more importantly our sinful nature, die with Christ on the cross. We emerge from the waters as a new creature in Christ. And "obedience to the Father" (a la 2 Nephi 31 - an LDS belief) is lacking, unless it was skipped over in the post or represented by Next, by participating in that ritual which is meant to cleanse one of their sins, Christ is seen to have identified himself with the sinners who he came to [save]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'll have to disagree. I don't know any LDS who believe Mordobund, it is in heavily Catholic language. But if you read it and take the essence of the paragraph - it is the same as LDS belief. Christ's baptism marks the beginning of his atoning mission to climax at his death and conclude at his resurrection. We then start our life under Christ's atonement with our baptism as we make our very first covenant. As far as "obedience to the Father", it is encompassed in the "fulfillment of all righteousness" which is the very first paragraph in the Catholic Catechism regarding Christ's baptism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Mordobund, it is in heavily Catholic language. But if you read it and take the essence of the paragraph - it is the same as LDS belief. Christ's baptism marks the beginning of his atoning mission to climax at his death and conclude at his resurrection. We then start our life under Christ's atonement with our baptism as we make our very first covenant. As far as "obedience to the Father", it is encompassed in the "fulfillment of all righteousness" which is the very first paragraph in the Catholic Catechism regarding Christ's baptism. I don't want just the "essence of the paragraph". I want to know what Catholics believe - both how it agree and disagrees with my belief (I'm not even talking about LDS belief here, although my belief stems from that). I don't know that I necessarily believe that Christ's 3-year mission was an "atoning mission". I think the conclusion of it was. And I think there was heavy foreshadowing. But I'm not aware of any LDS teaching that "Christ in that inaugural baptism took upon himself the sins of the world". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I don't think what's written in 2 Nephi 31 is necessarily contradictory to the Catholic faith, though I'm not sure that it's a necessary component either. What I mean by that is that, while I don't think there's anything contradictory in Catholic teaching in saying that Christ showed obedience to God by being baptised, I don't think that a person who denied that that was one of the specific purposes of his baptism in particular would be contradicting anything in official Church doctrine either. We can (probably) all agree that Christ's entire mission was in obedience to the Father, and being baptised was definitely a part of that mission. I personally don't think that showing people his obedience was one of the reasons that he was baptised specifically, though again I wouldn't say that it was "wrong" to believe that either. As far as what exactly fulfilling all righteousness means, I'm not sure that the Church has one definitive answer on that. The most common theory that I've heard, and the one that I personally favor, is that righteousness in this context is referring to salvation, meaning that Christ's baptism is ordered towards God's plan of salvation. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I thought I asked this before, but I can't find it posted anywhere, so maybe I didn't post it. I admit that my knowledge of Catholic doctrine would not fill a thimble, but I was under the impression that Jesus Christ was born with the taint of Adam's "Original Sin" just as much as any other human being ever born into the world (except his mother, who was immaculate). Thus, notwithstanding his divine nature, Jesus needed to be baptized for the same reason any of the rest of us need to be baptized: To overcome the inborn taint of original sin inherited from our first parents. Is this incorrect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I don't want just the "essence of the paragraph". I want to know what Catholics believe - both how it agree and disagrees with my belief (I'm not even talking about LDS belief here, although my belief stems from that). I don't know that I necessarily believe that Christ's 3-year mission was an "atoning mission". I think the conclusion of it was. And I think there was heavy foreshadowing. But I'm not aware of any LDS teaching that "Christ in that inaugural baptism took upon himself the sins of the world". I think you misunderstood Claire (if Claire believes like I did as a Catholic which is how I understand that teaching). The Catholics, like the LDS - believe Christ's took upon himself the sins of the world in his Atonement. That atonement started at his baptism (the gospels don't talk much about Christ until his baptism) and concluded at his resurrection. Something that is compatible with LDS teaching (remember, Catholics don't have pre-mortal existence in their doctrine). Yes, I do know that LDS believe Gethsemane is where Christ physically took the sins of the world... Catholics don't believe that. The entire Atonement is taking the sins of the world. But, that doesn't necessarily put Catholic and LDS out of phase on the purpose of Christ's baptism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 As far as what exactly fulfilling all righteousness means, I'm not sure that the Church has one definitive answer on that. The most common theory that I've heard, and the one that I personally favor, is that righteousness in this context is referring to salvation, meaning that Christ's baptism is ordered towards God's plan of salvation. "Fulfilling all righteousness" in the context of Matt 3 continues in the same exegesis as Matt 5 and 6. The righteousness points to God's will and the holy covenant - which, yes, is centered around the plan for our salvation. Fulfilling all righteousness in this context, therefore, is not just fulfilling a prophecy but Jesus submitting to the will of the Father. That's something I learned in Catholic School which is the same as LDS teaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I thought I asked this before, but I can't find it posted anywhere, so maybe I didn't post it. I admit that my knowledge of Catholic doctrine would not fill a thimble, but I was under the impression that Jesus Christ was born with the taint of Adam's "Original Sin" just as much as any other human being ever born into the world (except his mother, who was immaculate). Thus, notwithstanding his divine nature, Jesus needed to be baptized for the same reason any of the rest of us need to be baptized: To overcome the inborn taint of original sin inherited from our first parents. Is this incorrect? That is actually incorrect. In Catholic theology, neither Jesus nor Mary were born with Original Sin. It would, after all, be pretty silly to say that Mary was without original sin but Christ had it Also we'd have one heck of a time explaining Hebrews 4:15! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 That is actually incorrect. In Catholic theology, neither Jesus nor Mary were born with Original Sin. It would, after all, be pretty silly to say that Mary was without original sin but Christ had it Also we'd have one heck of a time explaining Hebrews 4:15! So how did Christ avoid Original Sin? Was it the "virginal conception"? If so, is that the origin of the Catholic idea that sex is somehow associated with a polluted state, and that a celibate life is therefore "higher" or more righteous than a nuptial sexual life? mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 So how did Christ avoid Original Sin? Was it the "virginal conception"? If so, is that the origin of the Catholic idea that sex is somehow associated with a polluted state, and that a celibate life is therefore "higher" or more righteous than a nuptial sexual life? There was simply nowhere for him to get it from. As you mentioned, the "taint" of Original Sin is an inherited one, and Christ did not have a human parent with the original sin who could pass it on to him. In that sense, you could say that the "virginal conception" was a factor, since he didn't have a human dad with original sin and his human mom lacked original sin. Catholic beliefs do not associate sexual relations with a "polluted state." Generally speaking, in Catholicism, sex is a perfectly good thing so long as it is practiced within the confines of Holy Matrimony and no problematic elements are introduced (i.e. contraception, fornication, ect). There are some Church fathers who are more suspect than others of the pleasure derived from sex (Augustine, I'm looking at you), but generally that's accepted as being a caution against excess more than anything else. St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body is actually largely about the goods associated with marriage and sex. As far as celibacy goes, we do generally consider it as an objectively "higher" calling, but it's also not one that is necessarily better for any given individual. Both marriage and celibacy are considered "good," so the choice of one over the other is still a choice between goods. There are a couple reasons why celibacy tends to get a certain pride of place, but it really boils down to a certain way of interpreting certain scripture passages, particularly Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7. In Matthew, after Jesus' prohibition against divorce in verses 1-9, the disciples say that "if that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (These guys really didn't like their wives...) Jesus goes on to say "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt 19:11-12). We generally take that to mean that not marrying (i.e. celibacy) is a calling that not all people are necessarily equipped to handle, but that it is one that those who are so-equipped should accept. It does bear mentioning that the King James and other non-Catholic translations tend to render "renounce marriage" as "eunuch." The latter would actually probably be the more literal translation, but Catholics have historically interpreted being a "eunuch" in this context as being an individual who lives a life without sex. The Catholic interpretation of Matthew seems to get some support from 1 Corinthians 7:6-7. There, after Paul talks about marriage, he says that "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that." Here Paul seems to be saying that being as he is (celibate) seems preferable, but again not everybody can handle it. As he goes on to say in verse 9, "but if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (Glowing reviews like that are where Augustine tends to get his more suspicious attitude towards sex). Add to all that the fact that Christ lived a celibate life, and you pretty much have the Catholic rationale for celibacy. Vort and mordorbund 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Add to all that the fact that Christ lived a celibate life, and you pretty much have the Catholic rationale for celibacy. I realize that this is a Catholic doctrine, and seems to be the default belief of almost all Christian churches, but I would point out that nowhere is this ever stated in scripture. If it were true, it's strange that Paul would say how he would that all men should be like himself in that matter, rather than say that he would that all men should be like Christ. I would also note that it is only by a sort of sideways reference that we happen to know that Peter was married, based completely on an inference from an almost "by-the-way" reference to his mother-in-law. (Please note that the idea that Jesus was married is not LDS doctrine, official or otherwise. But many Latter-day Saints seem to believe this is so. For example, I do.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Wait. I didn't know Catholics believed that Mary was born without original sin. Is there an explanation for how that bypassed her? mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 P.S. Catholic tradition do not profess that Mary had to have been free of Original Sin for Christ to be born without Original Sin. Original Sin, in Catholic tradition, is inherited through the father. Note, that we always say it's Adam's sin instead of Eve's sin who was the first to eat the apple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Wait. I didn't know Catholics believed that Mary was born without original sin. Is there an explanation for how that bypassed her? Guess what... John the Baptist did not have Original Sin either. The circumstances of all 3 - Jesus, Mary, and John - are different. Jesus was because his father is God. Mary was through Immaculate conception (by grace), John's was through the Visitation (when Mary visited Elizabeth). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I realize that this is a Catholic doctrine, and seems to be the default belief of almost all Christian churches, but I would point out that nowhere is this ever stated in scripture. If it were true, That's just fine because Catholics are not sola scriptura folks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 That's just fine because Catholics are not sola scriptura folks... Valid point. So whence arises this doctrine? Holy tradition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Guess what... John the Baptist did not have Original Sin either. The circumstances of all 3 - Jesus, Mary, and John - are different. Jesus was because his father is God. Mary was through Immaculate conception (by grace), John's was through the Visitation (when Mary visited Elizabeth). I do want to make a bit of a distinction here. As a Catholic, you HAVE to believe that Jesus and Mary were preserved from original sin. You CAN believe that John the Baptist was preserved from original sin, but it is not an infallible doctrine the way the other two are. Valid point. So whence arises this doctrine? Holy tradition? Long story short, yes. That's pretty much just how Catholics (and most Christians) have historically interpreted the text, and we believe that the Church has always taught that. Wait. I didn't know Catholics believed that Mary was born without original sin. Is there an explanation for how that bypassed her? I just noticed that I missed your question! Basically, when Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception an infallible dogma back in the 19th century, he more or less attributed it to divine intervention. Here is the beginning of the decree formalizing the doctrine. I'm bolding the parts pertinent to Mary. "God Ineffable—whose ways are mercy and truth, whose will is omnipotence itself, and whose wisdom "reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly"—having foreseen from all eternity the lamentable wretchedness of the entire human race which would result from the sin of Adam, decreed, by a plan hidden from the centuries, to complete the first work of his goodness by a mystery yet more wondrously sublime through the Incarnation of the Word. This he decreed in order that man who, contrary to the plan of Divine Mercy had been led into sin by the cunning malice of Satan, should not perish; and in order that what had been lost in the first Adam would be gloriously restored in the Second Adam. From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so lover her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully." Again, it doesn't go into a lot of details on "how" God preserved her from original sin, only really that He did. Edited January 27, 2015 by Claire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I do want to make a bit of a distinction here. As a Catholic, you HAVE to believe that Jesus and Mary were preserved from original sin. You CAN believe that John the Baptist was preserved from original sin, but it is not an infallible doctrine the way the other two are. That's right. John the Baptist being free from original sin is an extrapolation of doctrine. So, here's really the basic difference between the 3: 1.) Christ - His father is God himself, therefore, he did not inherit original sin. 2.) Mary - By the grace of God she was conceived free of the taint of original sin from her father. She did not have to be free from original sin for Christ to be born without original sin. So, God's grace of her immaculate conception was made solely for love of Mary. 3.) John - From biblical account in Luke, it was prophesied that John will be filled with the Holy Spirit even in his mother's womb. This prophesy was thought to have been fulfilled sometime between his conception and Mary's visit to Elizabeth when John "leaped with joy in the womb" in recognition of the Messiah. For one to be filled with Spirit, one must have been free from original sin, therefore, sometime between John's conception and Mary's visit, he was divested of original sin... but yes, that's an extrapolation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 1.) Christ - His father is God himself, therefore, he did not inherit original sin. I don't think I've ever heard the whole thing about original sin being inherited through one's father. After some bouts with Google on the subject, I haven't found anything authoritative on the subject (or from any Catholic source for that matter). Mostly this seems to be a theory proposed to explain why Jesus didn't inherit original sin, which becomes somewhat unnecessary if you assume the immaculate conception. Do you have any reference for this one that I'm missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I don't think I've ever heard the whole thing about original sin being inherited through one's father. After some bouts with Google on the subject, I haven't found anything authoritative on the subject (or from any Catholic source for that matter). Mostly this seems to be a theory proposed to explain why Jesus didn't inherit original sin, which becomes somewhat unnecessary if you assume the immaculate conception. Do you have any reference for this one that I'm missing? It was taught to me from my Catholic school. I'll go look for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) It was taught to me from my Catholic school. I'll go look for it. Whoa. That didn't take me long. I just googled it. But I was trying to get a hit from the textbook we used (of course, I can't remember the name of the textbook). http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Who-Was-Born-Without-Original-Sin.htm Edit: Hmm... it also talks about John the Baptist... he must know my religious education teacher! Edit: Edit: I can't find any other source. Curious. I asked my high school classmate. He said the same thing I did about sin through Adam not Eve... hence, father to children. Edit: Edit: Edit: This was in the same lesson as Mary's Davidic lineage as Joseph was not Christ's bloodline. Do you know what I'm talking about? Edited January 27, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.