No three degrees of Glory in 1 Cor 15

[_Albion]

And presumably, given Mormon theology, he's still there if no one did his "temple" work during the 70 years the temple was still around until the Romans destroyed it and if no "relative" has submitted his name since the whole charade was "restored" by Joseph Smith in more modern times.

[_Tobin]

And presumably, given Mormon theology, he's still there if no one did his "temple" work during the 70 years the temple was still around until the Romans destroyed it and if no "relative" has submitted his name since the whole charade was "restored" by Joseph Smith in more modern times.

"temple" work as you put it was probably never done at the Jewish temple. The only endowments I'm aware of was conducted on high mountains, such as when Jesus took Peter, James and John on to a high mountain and was transfigured. I do not know how much was revealed during the 40 days Jesus showed himself to the saints after his resurrection since the scriptures are silent on that. And since there isn't much if any tradition of these types of ordinances for the dead in the Bible, I very seriously doubt any was done.

[_Mittens]

Seems like Mormon temples will soon sacrifice Lambs like temples in Israel


In the Journal of Wandle Mace the following is recorded: "Joseph told them to go to Kirtland, and cleanse and purify a certain room in the Temple, that they must kill a lamb and offer a sacrifice unto the Lord which should prepare them to ordain Willard Richards a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" ("Journal of Wandle Mace," p. 32, microfilmed copy at Brigham Young University Library).

Joseph Fielding Smith said that "the law of sacrifice will have to be restored.... Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of Adam and of necessity will have to be restored" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.94).

[_Albion]

Glad agree on several things from your last post, Tobin.

[_subgenius]

Please provide scriptural evidence that Paradise has multiple uses. I am not trying to cause any problem only to understand how you can switch definitions in this way. Why is the Paradise promised by Jesus not the Celestial Kingdom that you claim it was when Paul used the word? In Mormon theology is the spirit world not the place where people go to await all the requirements necessary for advancement to the Celestial Kingdom? Or is Paradise not the Celestial Kingdom as Mormonism defines Paul's words?

The New Testament uses paradise only three times, and it is usually thought to be "heaven"
The Old Testament uses paradise several times and it is clear that it means "garden"
The Jewish authors were known to refer to at least 4 levels of "paradise"
My understanding is that the Christian tradition is that paradise is simply a place for the blessed or a place for the separate spirit...a place of happiness.

Nevertheless, surely we must conclude the following:
1. The Thief died under the old covenant, thus making his repentance and/or baptism a non-issue
2. Jesus issued an assurance to the Thief
3. Jesus was clear, in all the translations i have read, that the Thief would be with him "TODAY"...not three days later...not 40 days later...but today...which, to me, means that where the both of them went, for however long, should be of interest.
4. Jesus never specifies where this place shall be...

But this thief is a hard lesson on repentance(work) as confirmed by the fate of the other thief.

[_Drifting]

Bump...

Subby, just say if you've been running your mouth off...again....

as usual you read very little about that which you criticize so much...
Confirmation by Albion
it is actually a common and "scholarly" assumption, but alas i do not have a photograph of the thief's baptism.

that all being said, Christ was certainly capable of circumventing "the rules" and saving the thief as He saw fit...however, the evidence seems to require a different conclusion.

As it is obvious that the thief would actually not be required to be baptized, his being a pre-covenant/ pre-commission death, the issue which Mittens attempted to resolve by invoking the "thief" still remains open!!! - aside from this distraction - no evangelical can give an example where "salvation", being "born again", or "justification" occurs without fulfilling the commandment (work) of repenting and being baptized!! (and for what it is worth, 'belief' is a work also)

Albion said...

We just don't know anything more about him that what is contained in the gospels and should take that at face value IMV.

So yes, you were just running your mouth off when you claimed...

It is more likely that the thief had already been baptized as was the custom in that area for most everyone. It would have been rare for the thief to have not been baptized.

Good to know.

[_Mittens]

it would be an anomaly for the thief to be baptised since John the Baptist was the first to do that in there culture.

[_bcspace]

sorry but Exegesis and context is important

Anyone who uses exegesis is in violation of 2 Cor 13:1. Doctrine comes only through the prophets via Christ's earthly Church (Ephesians 4).

As for 1 Cor 15, even the early Christians knew it meant varying degrees of salvation. The chapter clearly distinguishes between natural bodies and spiritual bodies and it is spiritual (resurrected during/after the Judgement) bodies that are divided into the degrees spoken of.

[_Albion]

Definitive source, please, for early Christians "knowing" that Corinthians 15 was referring to "varying degrees of glory" or heavens. The whole passage is about the resurrected body and how it will differ from the earthly body. It is not about the actual place of heaven whether it be one or three.

[_subgenius]

it would be an anomaly for the thief to be baptised since John the Baptist was the first to do that in there culture.

no it would not, baptisms were common in that area and it more likely that the thief had been baptized than not.....but then again, reasonable conclusions are not really comfortable with you.