Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Burning Petard »

My point is that, among many historians and theologians of Christianity, Apostolic does not mean the source is an apostle, rather that it is from one of the original 12 who had personal contact with Jesus before his crucifixion. The authority of Saul/Paul was some of the bitterest fights over what should be accepted as canonical. After the death of Judas, there were many individuals who called themselves 'apostle' and were acknowledged as such by various groups.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Scooter »

Please name some of these historians and theologians who limit the term apostolic to only the original Twelve, and please quote from the works in which they do so. Because that is something that I never came across in 13 years of Catholic religious education, nor in any religious studies course on early Christianity that I took at university.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14053
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Big RR »

I agree; I recall two reasons Paul was called an apostle the first is that he was the first apostle called by jesus after the resurrection (the road to Damascus thing): the other is that the remaining 11 apostles (after the betrayal and death of Judas) believed they needed to get a 12th apostle and elected one (I think his name was Matthias) who was never mentioned again--apparently jesus called Paul to be the replacement apostle. I don't necessarily buy either, but I think that is why Paul is commonly recognized as an apostle by most christian churches (including some that are fairly limited in how that word is used). Perhaps Meade could weigh in here.

I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference, because Paul authored more NT books than anyone else.

ETA: And, FWIW, apostle means one who is sent, presumably by god, to preach. Nothing limits it to any number, and most religious scholars recognize many persons are sent to preach and witness.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Joe Guy »

Speaking without any religious expertise whatsoever, as far as I know, 'Apostolic' means the teachings of the New Testament. So, to me, the phrase non-apostolic would simply mean not relating to the New Testament. It seems as though nowadays anyone could describe him/herself as an 'Apostle' if they're advocating the New Testament.

I don't know if I've added anything of value to this conversation so I'll bow out now...

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Scooter »

There is also 2 Peter 3:15-16 (c. 100 CE) that counts Paul's letters among the "scriptures".
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Guinevere »

Not my words, but on point:
Yes, because THESE are the types of problems the Catholic Church should be worrying about, right? If Catholics and their church believe that one word is the difference between being blessed by a magic sky fairy or nor then that adds a whole new layer of absurdity to an already absurd scenario.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR wrote:
Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:35 pm
What would you like to add?
That's a good question; nothing that immediately comes to mind, but then I think god is revealed to us through many things, not just scripture.
That's a very scriptural statement right there! Wikki, she say goodly: General revelation is a form of revelation that gives knowledge through experience or records of history, creation, and innate conscience.Christian theologians cite biblical references to support general revelation: Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-6, and Matthew 5:45. General revelation shows the works and existence of God in indirect ways Note that General Revelation includes the faculty of Reason.

These things tell us that God is, what God has done, but without detail. They cannot tell us 'what God wants' or 'why" and so on.

There is always (always) great danger that adheres to people who tell us "what God wants" unless it is in accordance with the scriptures. And not just cherry-picked bits - it must be consistent with the message of Christ (and not just bits of it). So, when Christ is quoted as saying that we'll get everything we pray for, that must be informed by all other things he said about prayer and what the OT says of God's will. Otherwise it's prosperity and jet-planes for self-described Prophets, Apostles and others of their money-grabbing (and worse) ilk.

Scooter notwithstanding, the early church saw no need to write out a legal description of what they meant by "Apostolic origin" for the NT books. Hint: it's number 2 on this long list. The church councils did not consider works written by their own
popes, bishops, and leaders to be Apostolic - which should be pretty damn good evidence that they didn't muck about with them.

(æpɒstɒlɪk )
1. adjective
Apostolic means belonging or relating to a Christian religious leader, especially the Pope.

2. adjective
Apostolic means belonging or relating to the early followers of Christ and to their teaching.

The letters of Paul were accepted by the church(es) as Apostolic. That decision is informed by several things. (1) it was practical since so many of the churches had the letters and took them as (ahem) gospel. (2) Paul's experience of being called to be an Apostle was accepted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem and he was accepted by the 12 (and particularly the bigwigs, James, John and Peter) as a recognized apostle of Christ. The letters (and one can assume there were some) of Barnabus, SIlas, Timothy, Titus and so on would not be "Apostolic" unless the churches believed they were authored under the direction of one of the original 11+1+Paul. In practice, that means Matthew, Mark(Peter's stories), John (gospel plus 4 others) and Luke (gospel and Acts) through association with Paul and others. Then James, Peter himself, Jude and the author of Hebrews - believed to be Paul, though disputed in the early church and accepted these days as "unknown" by most sensible people.

Calling oneself "apostle" does not make one an "Apostle" any more than calling oneself a teapot makes one suitable for a hot beverage preparation. The church decided what they meant by Apostolic and that's that. There's nothing to add.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

My comments added:
Burning Petard wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:26 am
All the letters traditionally written by Paul are thus non-Apostolic. WRONG

Yes, Paul claimed two be an apostle from Jesus and from God. But he never made theses claims until was Jesus was long gone from the scene. Nor did anyone else. You are pointing out that he never made this claim until he became a follower of the Way? I guess when he was persecuting Christians it was a bit too early to claim to be an apostle :lol:

Almost daily I see a billboard informing me that I am invited to a local church to see and listen to a self-described Apostle from Jesus and from God.Yes, I see the same here

None of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, or any other Christian denomination I know about is anxious to include this person's pronouncements as Apostolic. I should hope not indeed; bloody fakers

Again, dogma trumps data.Or common sense, truth and reality dictate such people should be dismissed as self-promoting charlatans

snailgate
Mormons don't accept a finality of canon at all--they hold that the canon may be continually expanded
Hardly surprising since they are not Christian and added their own books of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Crackpot wrote:
Fri Feb 18, 2022 5:20 pm
I have a chart somewhere that show when and where the canonized texts were accepted and disputed but doesn’t list any of the books that were eventually dropped. (I would like to know what they were and the reason for dropping them)
This isn't exactly what you refer to, but perhaps it helps? Lots of good stuff in here

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Gob »

Having a competent god, one who could write the manual clearly, would mean there was no debate as to what silly rituals need to be completed to keep him happy.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by BoSoxGal »

I’m with Carl:

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan.

Life is so full of things to do and see and think about, I’m glad I don’t spend any time mulling over the whims of invisible sky entities and the people and institutions who claim to speak for them.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Gob wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:32 pm
Having a competent god, one who could write the manual clearly, would mean there was no debate as to what silly rituals need to be completed to keep him happy.
Still saying nothing I see. "Keep him happy", that's not at all onside. What he wants is clear in scripture. What men decide to do to keep themselves happy is on them.

Answer: do you blame murder on those who have not made it clear that murder is illegal? Or do you blame the murderer?

Disbelief is respectable - cant is just cant, from priests or atheists
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

BoSoxGal wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:14 pm
I’m with Carl:

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan.

Life is so full of things to do and see and think about, I’m glad I don’t spend any time mulling over the whims of invisible sky entities and the people and institutions who claim to speak for them.
I agree with Carl too. Shame he was so deluded :lol:
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:14 pm
Mormons don't accept a finality of canon at all--they hold that the canon may be continually expanded
Hardly surprising since they are not Christian and added their own books of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price.
Not sure of you are being ironic or even sarcastic because I don't know enough about all these nutty ideas. And I include mainstream religions of all stripes in that. But surely the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints consider themselves Christian.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by BoSoxGal »

Mormons do consider themselves Christians, but many Christians don’t consider them to be. Just more infighting over invisible sky entities and what they really mean - the basis of much of man’s cruelty to each other.

Of course the teachings of the Mormon Church are no sillier or weirder than the teachings of Rome or Martin Luther. It’s all silly from the outside looking in - as most cults are.
Are Mormons Christian? It's complicated
by Daniel Burke
January 20, 2012
c. 2012 Religion News Service (RNS) Ask Mormons if they are Christian, and their answer often starts with a sigh.

Look at our name, they'll say, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Read The Book of Mormon's subtitle, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." Examine our Articles of Faith, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved..."

"When we read in the press that some religious person who should know better refers to us as non-Christian, it is baffling to us," said Michael Otterson, the church's head of public affairs. "To suggest that we don't embrace Christ and his sacrifice for all of us is insulting."

Yet nearly a quarter of Americans remain unconvinced, according to a recent poll conducted by The Salt Lake Tribune. The Vatican and several Protestant churches do not accept Mormon baptisms as legitimate (neither do Mormons recognize theirs), and some conservative evangelicals call Mormonism a "cult." Mormons, meanwhile, believe they belong to the one true Christian church.

The theological debate might have remained relegated to Sunday school discussions and interfaith summits were it not for the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon and onetime LDS bishop. While the former Massachusetts governor and current GOP frontrunner has muted religious talk during this campaign, he indirectly addressed the Mormon-Christian issue during his previous White House bid.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked," he said in a 2007 speech in Texas. "What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind."

Stressing the similarities between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity makes political sense. Republicans who say Mormons are not Christian are less likely to view Romney favorably or support his campaign, according to a November survey by the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

During the 2007 speech, Romney acknowledged that "my church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths." But explaining theological arcana is not a politician's job, he argued. It amounts to a religious test for office, which the Constitution forbids.

Still, the debate lingers around Romney's campaign: Are he and fellow Mormons Christians? The question seems simple enough, but the answer is quite complicated.

Who's in and Who's Out?

According to "The Atlas of Global Christianity," there are 41,000 Christian denominations. No definition of Christianity could encompass their doctrinal diversity, said Martin Marty, an emeritus professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School. "I wish there was some official place where you could determine who's in and who's out, but there's not. No one can speak for all of Christianity in all its nuances."

The atlas lists Mormonism as a "marginal" Christian group, along with Jehovah's Witnesses and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, primarily because it deviates from traditional Christian teachings on Jesus and claims sources of revelation beyond the Bible.

The "marginal" category is not a perfect fit and rings a pejorative tone, said Todd Johnson, editor of the atlas and director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Seminary. "It's not a category that helps you understand what these groups believe. It's just saying that they have something besides the Bible that is quite significant."

For centuries, most Christians have relied a closed canon of scriptures and creeds to draw the circle of membership. Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestant churches recite the 4th Century Nicene Creed, for example, which states foundational Christian tenets.

Mormonism's founding prophet, Joseph Smith, blasted the Christian canon wide open and cast aside the creeds. At a time when religious revivals engulfed his Upstate New York homestead, a 14-year-old Smith reported a vision of God and Jesus, who told him that the Christian churches had fallen into apostasy.

A second vision directed Smith to a stack of buried golden plates, according to LDS Church history. The plates, which became The Book of Mormon, told of an ancient society visited by Jesus in North America that was destroyed by warring tribes.

With the impatience of a prophet, Smith set out to restore the Christian church. He revised the Bible; reported receiving "keys to the priesthood" from John the Baptist; rejected the traditional idea of the Trinity as three-gods-in-one; taught that God was once a flesh-and-blood man, and that men could become gods through purification and obedience to the church.

They were all -- including Smith's promotion as Prophet of the Restoration -- radical departures from centuries of Christian orthodoxy. And intentionally so.

Smith's Latter-day Saints consider The Book of Mormon as much a part of God's word as the Bible, and continue to honor their top leader as "prophet, seer and revelator."

"Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations," Smith said, "and where is our religion? We have none."

The Fourth Abrahamic Faith?

Jan Shipps, the preeminent non-Mormon expert on the LDS church, draws a comparison between the early Christians and Latter-day Saints. Both introduced new scriptures and ideas to established religions, and insisted that their new faith fulfilled the old. Christians added the New Testament to Judaism, and Smith added The Book of Mormon to Christianity.

Richard Land, an ethicist with the Southern Baptist Convention, goes even further, calling Mormonism "the fourth Abrahamic faith," after Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Like Islam, Land said, Mormons receive the Old and New Testament as sacred texts, but not as the final divine word. Like Islam's Prophet Muhammad, Smith is considered an authoritative vessel of God's word.

"Whatever it is, Mormonism is not Christianity," Land said. "They do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not believe in God the Father as he is recognized in the orthodox Christian faith, and they believe that 'As man now is, God was once.' The only thing right about that sentence from the orthodox Christian perspective is the punctuation."

Evangelicals like Land tend to be the most eager to keep Mormons from the Christian camp. In addition to doctrinal concerns, Johnson said, conservative Christians worry about sheep-stealing Mormon missionaries. "It's a pragmatic decision to call (Mormons) non-Christian, to protect church members from Mormon evangelism," he said.


But even Catholics and more liberal Protestants, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Methodist Church, do not consider Mormon baptisms valid.

"The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith," the Methodists wrote in 2000.

Cherishing Mormon Distinctiveness

Mormons do not deny their differences with traditional Christianity. According to a recent survey, Mormons are as likely to say their religion resembles Judaism as it does evangelical Protestantism.

Otterson says Mormons cherish their distinctiveness, much as Catholics or Methodists show special devotion to their traditions. But Mormon leaders have also sought to tie their unique theology to the earliest Christians, using the ancient past to sanction the present.

For example, arguing that Mormons are not Christians because they do not recite the Nicene Creed would leave Jesus and his disciples outside the Christian fold as well, argues Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles. And, Holland says, the idea of a flesh-and-blood God should not sound strange to Christians, who, after all, believe in the bodily birth and resurrection of Jesus.

Christians who insist on a single, closed canon forget that Catholics and Protestants use different versions of the Bible, argues Stephen Robinson, a professor of religion at Mormon-run Brigham Young University in Utah. And didn't differing interpretations of the Trinity contribute to the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in 1054?

Mormon theologian Robert Millet has been laboring to convince Christians that the Mormon idea of deification -- humans becoming gods -- resembles the mystical union with the divine taught by early church fathers like St. Augustine. But Millet said he worries more about the opinions of Christians in the pews than the specialized scholars who read his books.

"When people call Mormons non-Christian, they might believe that we do not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, or believe in the New Testament," Millet said. "We don't want to fight about this. We just wish people would get it right."
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Burning Petard »

The problem is that there is no international arbiter who declares whether of not Mormons, or Amish or Lutherans or Aramean people are 'real' Christians

Hell, we can't even agree on whether or not Dr. Oz or Liz Cheney is a Republican.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Scooter »

The same ilk that says Mormons aren't Christians because they aren't trinitarian have no problem accepting Oneness Pentecostals as Christians.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:
Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:12 pm
The same ilk that says Mormons aren't Christians because they aren't trinitarian have no problem accepting Oneness Pentecostals as Christians.
Possibly that is because the Bible nowhere states that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three-in-one. It is a theory given the status of orthodoxy by vote. There is room for a different idea that does not invalidate what is in the scripture. It is much like infant vs believer baptism - one must get along with both those things, although denominations usually decide upon one type for their own practise. Gob wishes God had laid down the law - IMO he is not concerned over such a trivial human concoction - either way is fine.

Mormons however (as the helpful article posted by BSG) contradict the scriptures and invented their own. Christian (and Jewish) scriptures were written on normal substances by normal methods. They were not delivered on brass plates manufactured by Joseph Smith.

Christians may differ on the how of doing churchy things - they do not change the Bible. I think that's an adequate descriptor.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by BoSoxGal »

Mormons don’t change the Bible either, Meade. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER TESTAMENT of Jesus Christ.

Honestly I’ve no doubt that if the second coming of Christ was a real thing that actually happened, the majority of sanctimonious Christians would reject him as a false prophet no matter what he said or how he said it.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Thousands of Invalid Baptisms Reek Havoc

Post by Burning Petard »

Don't change the bible? Where have you been in the arguments about the King James Version, the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Edition, the New Jerusalem Bible, the Message? And that is only for the English language.

snailgate

Post Reply