Is Baptism required for Salvation ?

[_LittleNipper]

Clearly, one thief was never water baptized but was moved to understand and accept Christ by some anointing.

"Clearly" it was made up to con newbies. And it worked!

Splish splash, say a few words and a cosmic event ensues. Basically magic tricks. Like turning wafers into the body of Christ, you can change a human being's whole personality and behavior with a ritual.

"Oh, but it's the "Holy Ghost" that does it." Except that no one can show that such a thing exists. It might as well be a Thetan a la Hubbard or a Tingler from the old horror movie. And it works so inconsistently, inspires people who do bad things as well as good. So it's a null factor in the equation. What it comes down to is people will be good when they want to be. Magic passes and dunkings or not. Putting a layer of voodoo on it might mystify and impress the ignorant but only to produce more confusion.

That is your belief concerning Biblical documentation that was collected a mere 30 years after the fact. I'd say that there were still enough witnesses around to either substantiate or cry foul.

[_Maksutov]

That is your belief concerning Biblical documentation that was collected a mere 30 years after the fact. I'd say that there were still enough witnesses around to either substantiate or cry foul.

We can look at Mormonism and see how much cultural noise and controversy can be generated in 30 years time. He had witnesses, too.

[_LittleNipper]

That is your belief concerning Biblical documentation that was collected a mere 30 years after the fact. I'd say that there were still enough witnesses around to either substantiate or cry foul.

We can look at Mormonism and see how much cultural noise and controversy can be generated in 30 years time. He had witnesses, too.

The major differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that while the Bible contains 66 books and the Book of Mormon has 15 Books both claiming to be written over thousands of years, the Bible has a historical transcription track record that extends over about the same length of time with additional books added in due course that collaborate. Whereas the ONLY historic connection between the the modern era and the Book of Mormon rests entirely on Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon does boast witnesses (though mostly Whitmers and Smiths); however, there is a total lack of historic collaborating transcriptions that were not entirely of Joseph Smith's own effort & accredidation. And there is the problem with the witnesses.

The common LDS assertion presently is that the original 3 witnesses did NOT touch or handle the alleged golden plates (and several of the later testimony of the witnesses establishes this also). Yet it is additionally apparent that the earlier accounts of the three witnesses (and some of the later ones) say the EXACT OPPOSITE: that they did indeed touch and handle the golden plates. The very same may also be said of the eight witnesses. While the finished signed statement was clear that the eight witnesses had “handled” the plates, it was also evident that this was not entirely accurate (from their own testimony). This should discredit their accounts and bring their validity into serious question.

[_huckelberry]

That is your belief concerning Biblical documentation that was collected a mere 30 years after the fact. I'd say that there were still enough witnesses around to either substantiate or cry foul.

We can look at Mormonism and see how much cultural noise and controversy can be generated in 30 years time. He had witnesses, too.

I am not inclined to see either side of the above observations as exclusively correct. I do find myself wonder about an aspect of this however.

It seems to me the most important community observations or misobservations believers made about Mormonism happened very very early and quickly. I first think of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Other community visionary experiences might be considered but the key moments of myth creation happened very fast and very early.

If I compare this to the formation of Christian beliefs I notice that it is possible that the stories which are basic to Christian understanding could have formed either accurately or mistakenly very early. If one could document that the miracle stories including resurrection were in circulation and related by Peter within a year of Jesus death, you would have no demonstration that they were accurate.

I might also suspect that stories that took shape with what ever degree of accuracy within a few months of Jesus death could then be spread about for years in a community with relatively little change.

I think Nipper has a point that the stories were not bouncing about randomly but were shared in a community of people who placed high value on them. I think that context could allow some change but would have a strong conserving power.

[_huckelberry]

Clearly, one thief was never water baptized but was moved to understand and accept Christ by some anointing.

Nipper I like and think I understand that you are pointing to something concrete underlying the ritual of baptism.

Your way of saying it uses traditional words that seem to come from the Calvinist world view that people are unable to accept God without God drawing them to him. I may not always fit proper 5points in my mind but I do have some respect for that thought.

If I look back at this example I find myself noticing that it is possible for a reader to understand what was happening with the thief in different ways. Perhaps he was profoundly impressed by Jesus. Perhaps he was simply offended that the other thief was being a jerk and experienced a moment of compassion for Jesus.

In truth I think moment of compassion is the clearest explanation. I am not sure that the thief knew much about Jesus. He did recognize a lack of mercy in the other thief and perhaps saw that lack as some thing that got them both in trouble. Jesus sees that moment of compassion as sufficient opening for repentance and for mercy to find the thief.

I do not think compassion is a magic thing but I do believe it is much more to do with the holy spirit than does magic changes, swoons , shouting etc.

I think the Holy Spirit is with us in compassion and that combination can change the world.

Well it obviously is not a magic wand erasing the problems of the world. Suffering has continued but I know of no better medicine for healing hate than compassion.

[_Maksutov]

Well it obviously is not a magic wand erasing the problems of the world. Suffering has continued but I know of no better medicine for healing hate than compassion.

[_Maksutov]

We can look at Mormonism and see how much cultural noise and controversy can be generated in 30 years time. He had witnesses, too.

The major differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that while the Bible contains 66 books and the Book of Mormon has 15 Books both claiming to be written over thousands of years, the Bible has a historical transcription track record that extends over about the same length of time with additional books added in due course that collaborate. Whereas the ONLY historic connection between the the modern era and the Book of Mormon rests entirely on Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon does boast witnesses (though mostly Whitmers and Smiths); however, there is a total lack of historic collaborating transcriptions that were not entirely of Joseph Smith's own effort & accredidation. And there is the problem with the witnesses.

The common LDS assertion presently is that the original 3 witnesses did NOT touch or handle the alleged golden plates (and several of the later testimony of the witnesses establishes this also). Yet it is additionally apparent that the earlier accounts of the three witnesses (and some of the later ones) say the EXACT OPPOSITE: that they did indeed touch and handle the golden plates. The very same may also be said of the eight witnesses. While the finished signed statement was clear that the eight witnesses had “handled” the plates, it was also evident that this was not entirely accurate (from their own testimony). This should discredit their accounts and bring their validity into serious question.

Thanks for a thoughtful post, Nipper.

[_Choyo Chagas]

The major differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that ...

...that you believe in the former and doesn't believe in the next

The major differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that while the Bible contains 66 books and the Book of Mormon has 15 books

what about qur'an, which has 114 surahs?
114 is more than 81 (66 + 15)
even the 87 meccan suras are more than that...

[_subgenius]

So did I miss the post where Mittens explains why Jesus got baptized?

[_LittleNipper]

So did I miss the post where Mittens explains why Jesus got baptized?

Jesus set the example. He prayed to the Father and tells believers to pray to the Father. Jesus was baptized/immersed as an illustration, and tells believers to be immersed as a representation of what Jesus went through. Jesus established the Lord's Supper as a memorial of His sacrifice and asks believers to continue that memorial. Jesus is the Savior of whosoever will, but He is also the believer's example.