When I read the Bible, the only perspective that works... is Mormon?

Question

Is there any other Sect/denom that knows the meaning of these verses?

#1.)Baptized for the dead...1 Cor 15:29---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?

# 2.) Three parts(degrees) of heaven?---40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from antother star in glory 42 so also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.

there are more examples... but are there any other churches that understand these? along with everythng else?

Brendon: All you did was rant about it... why can't you explain it and back it up?

I didn't mean for this question to be an attack... you sure seem defensive.

Fatman: was that a serious answer? if you were joking... it was funny. lol.
If you weren't you're so confused I don't know what t tell you.

No one "walks up to a corpse etc. etc."

#1.) is 1 Cor 15:29
#2.) is 1 cor 15:40-42

Answer 1

I just wanted to add some comments after all the criticism I have read here of the practice of baptism for the dead. This was a legitimate early Christian practice. Why would Paul have used a reference to a pagan practice to prove his point about the resurrection? Wouldn't that be counter-productive?

It is true that the Marcionites, who were considered by most church leaders to be heretics, believed in this doctrine of proxy baptism for dead people. Their beliefs were rejected by influential church Fathers, such as Tertullian and Epiphanius. Baptism for the dead was prohibited at the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Third Council of Carthage (393 AD). But this was the 4th Century! This indicates that there were Christians who believed in baptism for the dead up until this point. It was a big enough issue that it had to be debated in church councils.

Some, however, continued the practice. The Egyptian Coptic Christian church did not feel bound by these councils and continued the practice for centuries. The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran also continued the practice. But was their observance of this practice legitimate, or was it a heresy?

It seems that the Catholic Church had an agenda for wanting to prohibit the practice. We can see clearly that they continued to allow prayers and masses and other services for the Dead, and that they felt that these acts would be benificial for their departed friends and relatives. Those who had been baptized Christian could spend less time suffering in Purgatory if the living would perform these services. Donating money to the Church became one of the most important services you could perform for the suffering Dead. However, baptism was excluded because the Catholics wanted as many people to be baptized alive as possible so that they would join the Church. Having the possibility of being baptized after the person was dead would be harmful to the Catholic agenda at that time.

Salvation for the Dead was an important doctrine in New Testament times. See John 5:25-29; 1 Peter 3:18-21; 1 Peter 4:6. The traditional belief is that Jesus, between his death and resurrection, went down to Hades and broke down the gates of Hell, allowing all who would believe in him to pass over to Paradise. Since Jesus had declared that ALL needed to receive baptism before they could enter the Kingdom of God, how could these spirits enter heaven without some provision for their being baptized?

Although this concept was virtually cut from what became the New Testament canon, it is preserved in some of the extra-Biblical Christian literature. Take, for example, the Apocalypse of Paul. Paul is shown a lake situated before the heavenly city:
And I said unto the angel: What is this? and he said unto me: This is the lake Acherusa where is the city of Christ: but not every man is suffered to enter into that city: for this is the way that leadeth unto God, and if any be a fornicator or ungodly, and turn and repent and bear fruits meet for repentance, first when he cometh out of the body he is brought and worshippeth God, and then by the commandment of the Lord he is delivered unto Michael the angel, and he washeth him in the lake Acherusa and so bringeth him into the city of Christ with them that have done no sin.

Although this account is apocryphal, It is quite clear that Jesus himself must have taught the doctrine of baptism for the dead. The only way that departed spirits could have the hope of entering heaven, if they didn't have the chance for baptism in this life, is to be baptized by proxy by living members of the Church. It is sad that this precious doctrine is only preserved today by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some Neo-Apostolic congregations in Europe. Such a doctrine is representative of the great mercy of God to all mankind, whether they had the opportunity to be baptized in this life or not.

Answer 2

You can site these verses all day, and everyone is going to have a different opinion. Of course everyone thinks they are right.

I believe what you believe, so I'm not bashing our religion, I'm just stating that no matter what we think, there will be others that think something different. To them, we are wrong for doing baptism for the dead. We see it as redemption, as a way to bring all mankind into harmony with the laws of Christ. Others see it as weird, or un-Christian. I don't, but then I understand the concept and can see the benefits of it.

The second question, most will argue that it's talking about the way the universe was organized, or they are words used to describe something else. We know what it's talking about, and we understand that everyone has a place in God's kingdom. Most will never understand this until it happens.

People will say that the bible and Book of Mormon contradict each other, but they don't. If you take time to do some research, follow footnotes, cross reference, you will learn that the bible supports the Book of Mormon. But until people can be open-minded and more able to understand things, they won't get it.

Opposition in all things!! Just remember that no matter how much persecution there is, how much opposition, if something is of God, it will prevail!!

Answer 3

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.
But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.
In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?
However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look.
Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."
The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

I -- first person singular
you (singular) -- second person singular
he/she/it -- third person singular
we -- first person plural
you (plural) -- second person plural
they -- third person plural

It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."

Matthew J. Slick
Christian Apologetics Ministry

Answer 4

"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?" (1 Cor 15:29) What is "baptism for the dead"? Does the church do this? If not, what was the purpose of St. Paul mentioning it? What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, "They who are baptized for the dead. Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness?" (St John Chrysostom, Homily XL, on 1 Corinthians)

Answer 5

i grew to become into watching a around table communicate of the Bible placed out via BYU. 3 of the professors have been utilising the KVJ and the third grew to become into utilising an NIV, so any Bible will do. however the Bible this is secure interior the quad, and used maximum in many cases, is the older KJV,no longer the recent KJV. i admire the older version of the KJV the suited, yet then i admire Shakespear too, so i've got not got the priority with the kind used interior the KJV.

Answer 6

The whole of I Corinthians 15 concerns the resurrection from the dead. Paul cites the example of those who were baptized as a proof of the resurrection. Their actions symbolized their hope that they would live again. The resurrection is the hope of the dead.

In addition, The Bible clearly shows that, before a person may be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33). The dead are not able to repent or believe, because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). baptism is for the living.

Paul's question seems to be, "Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?" (New King James Version). However, this verse is not correctly translated from the Greek. Paul is not talking about being baptized "in the place of," "on behalf of," or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper, and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context.

Baptism is also a symbol of the resurrection. To rise up out of the watery grave is to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of the dead (Romans 6:1-5). To surrender one's life to Christ now, to crucify the self now, to be baptized—all this is foolish unless there is a resurrection of the dead. If there were no hope of the resurrection, life could be summed up this way: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (I Corinthians 15:32).

So, what is the hope of the dead? The resurrection! Baptism illustrates the hope of the resurrection. One who is baptized rises out of a watery grave, symbolic of the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never come true?" However, Paul affirms that, because Christ died and rose again, we have this true hope, the resurrection, to look forward to (I Corinthians 15:17-22).

This verse, then, has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

Answer 7

When I was a missionary in Italy I used the version of the Bible that was recognized by the Catholic Church. It had the Vatican stamp of approval in it. There were various footnotes in the Bible to give the correct Catholic interpretation of the scriptures.

For 1 Cor. 15:29 the footnote said that evidently in the early days of the Church members of the Church were baptized for and in behalf of their ancestors. There was no explanation given as to why this practice was discontinued.

Answer 8

When I read the Old Testament and New Testament, Christianity is what gives me wholistic perspective on life.

I don't know what verse you were quoting in point 2, but point 1 affirms the belief in the resurrection. Paul is illustrating that the resurrection is a reality.

Answer 9

If the only perspective for the Bible that "worked" was Mormonism, then not only would all Christians be Mormons, but Mormonism would've started 2000 years ago or so instead of 160-170 years ago in the U.S. Every denomination is convinced that only "their interpretation" is correct; and all of them use Bible verses to back up their claim. Try something original.

EDIT: It's not a rant; it's logic. Think about it: How long has the Bible been around? If Mormonism was the only perspective on the Bible that worked, then why didn't Mormonism start sooner? Why are there so many denominations of Christianity--more being made every day, practically--all of whom are convinced of their own righteousness, and all of whom are not only convinced that their take on the Bible is correct, but all others are incorrect? Pretty much all denominations of Christianity point out verses in the Bible that they are convinced "back up" their point of view. Disagreements between interpretations are what CAUSE new denominations to be made. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Mormons. I'm friends with Mormons. I just greatly dislike it when people try to convince me why I'm wrong or am going to hell or what have you, because I don't do and follow the same things that they do. That's why I take an isolationist stance: I firmly believe that everyone is well within their right to believe what they want to believe, and that nitpicking each other's beliefs because you're absolutely "convinced" the Bible MUST have meant this or that is just a petty excuse to rationalize why you're right, and everyone else is wrong. I don't scrutinize people for their beliefs; I do, however, scrutinize them for their actions.

Answer 10

1. Read the chapter in context and see what Paul is arguing here. The theme of the chapter is the resurrection. He says that if Jesus did not raise again, He is dead and you have no hope (you have been baptized according to Romans 6 into the resurrection of Christ).
2. It is the resurrection body that is talked about there and how the glory of it is different than that of our present body.

One of the perspectives that doesn't work is the Mormon one because they ignore the present context and implant another one.