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 Corinthians 15:29 - King James Version
So, here we go again on another assumption from our friendly Neighborhood INC, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, and, should I guess, this may be an out-of-context ideology from our friend. Let's find out -
The LDS church, they do baptism of the literal dead by proxy. They don't understand what apostle Paul meant to be in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Apostle Paul not referring to the literal dead, he is referring to those alive but counted dead in the sight of God because of their sins.
Wrong! Nice try, but let me give you the insights. I understand why 1 Corinthians 15:29 raises questions. It’s one of the most unusual writings Paul ever wrote, and Christians bago pa nagakaroon ng INC, ay matagal ng naguluhan nito for centuries. But to say Latter-day Saints “
do not understand” Paul's word, or that this verse cannot possibly refer to the literal na mga
patay or dead people, goes way further than the text itself or the historical background of the audience. Sa madaling salita, di mo alam ang context.
First, importante mong malaman kung ano ba ang history o pagkasabi ni Paul sa mga taga Corinthian. What is actually happening in 1 Corinthians 15, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Ako na mag-explain at parang nangamote ka pa. Paul's entire argument was about the literal resurrection of the dead; take note mo yan ha, at hindi ito
metaphorical spiritual death. Meron sila practices regarding vicarious baptism or proxy, pero ang problema hindi sila naniniwala sa Resurrection. Kaya pagkasabi dyan ni Paul sa kanila, useless lang ang ginagawa nila kung di naman pala sila naniwala na mabuhay muli ang Patay. Which suggests plainly that hindi nila naunawaan ang resurrection, and if naintindihan nila ito, magkaroon din ng bisa ginagawa nila. Throughout the chapter kung nagbabasa ka at alam mo ang historical background, Paul keeps returning to the same point:
if the dead do not rise, then faith, preaching, and hope are all empty or walang silbi dahil nga hindi sila naniniwala sa resurrection ng mga patay pero nagbinyag sila sa mga patay. Ngayon ito pansinin mo, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. When he suddenly asks, “
Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?”, he is appealing to a practice connected to people who are actually dead, not to sinners who are still alive. Yung sinasabi mo na "
Apostle Paul not referring to the literal dead..." That's a poor argument of misunderstood context, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.
Ang explanation na ang “
dead” dito ay ibig sabihin lang “
spiritually dead dahil sa kasalanan” ay medyo
hindi masyadong fit sa flow ng iniisip ni Paul or sa epistle nya. Sa mga succedding verses, hindi siya nagturo tungkol sa repentance, forgiveness, o spiritual renewal. Ang focus niya ay sa graves, resurrection, at kung ano ang nangyayari sa mga taong namatay na.
Kung babaguhin mo ang meaning ng “
dead” into someting not literal sa isang verse lang, na walang kahit anong supporting statement mula sa mga text on the same chapter, mas marami kang problems na magawa nyan Jose kaysa sa masosolve mo. Parang shortcut na nagiging dahilan para maguluhan yung context kaysa maintindihan ito nang tama.
1 Timothy 5:6 - King James Version
6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
They are counted dead because of sins.
They need to be baptized because baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
May mga passages tulad ng
1 Timothy 5:6 at Ephesians 2 na malinaw na gumagamit ng “
dead” sa spiritual sense, at fully agree ang Latter-day Saints sa ganitong paggamit. Madalas kasi gamitin ng Scripture ang “
death”
metaphorically. Pero ang pagiging metaphorical ng isang word hindi ibig sabihin na palaging ganoon ang gamit niya. Context ang nagde-decide ng meaning, at sa 1 Corinthians 15, ang context ay walang dudang tungkol sa physical death at resurrection. Hindi mo ba napansin yan, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
Isa pa, it is worth na
hindi kinokontra ni Paul ang practice na binanggit niya.
Hindi niya ito kino-correct, hindi niya pinagwa-warn against, at hindi niya tinawag na false teaching. Ginagamit niya ito bilang supporting evidence para sa doctrine or belief about the resurrection. Dapat lang maging cautious ka, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata bago ka mag hocus-pocus or basta nalang i-dismiss ang practice without knowing the context. Kung mali talaga ‘yan, e mawawala ang lakas ng argument ni Paul. Parang sinasabi niya, “
Tingnan mo, may practice sila na pagbinyag sa patay, di na kailangan yan dahil may resurrection naman so mali yang ginagawa nyong magbinyang sa mga patay.” which is even more problematic. Eh, kung ganon, bat pa tayo magpabinyag kung ang end result resurrection lang naman pala mahalaga. Oh di ba parang walang kwenta na ang ending, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
Acts 2:38 - King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Those had been baptized had been forgiven for their sins to be counted alive in the site of God.
At Tungkol naman sa Acts 2:38, we do agree or ang Latter-day Saints agree na ang baptism ay for the remission of sins, wala namang question dyan. Walang tayong pag-debatehan dyan since ito naman ang teaching regarding sa gospel ni Jesus Christ. Ang difference lang ay naniniwala rin and LDS na ang
justice at mercy ng Diyos ay hindi natatapos lamang sa buhay na ito.
Kung ang salvation ay talagang naka-depend sa mga
ordinances tulad ng baptism (see John 3:1-21), then logically, ang isang loving at just God ay kailangang mag-provide ng paraan para sa mga taong hindi kailanman nagkaroon ng pagkakataon or fair chance na tanggapin ang ordinances habang nabubuhay pa sila. Dyan pumapasok ang doctrine or ordinance ng baptism for the dead—hindi bilang pamimilit, kundi bilang pag-aalok.
But of course, sa understanding na ito, nananatili pa rin ang free agency. Walang sapilitan. Ang ordinansa ay ginagawa para sa kanila or sa mga namatay na, pero nasa kanila pa rin kung tatanggapin o tatanggihan nila ito dahil ang agency or kalayaan sa pagpili ng tao ay hindi ito kinuha kahit sila namatay na. Kaya para sa Latter-day Saints, ito ay isang expression ng mas
wider na mercy ng Diyos, hindi paglabag sa justice niya. So mali ba ito? The scripture doesn't say anything na hindi na ito dapat gawin, and even Paul hindi nya ito tinangal sa kanilang practices.
Ephesians 2:1-6 - King James Version
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
The scripture about
Ephesians 2:1-6 is not actually the Case in 1 Corinthians 15, I don't see any relevance nito Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. You simple want to add that thinking na ito ay connected sa sulat ni Paul sa dalawang magkahiwalay na settings. Dito palang pinatunayan mo na wala kang alam base on Biblical Context and Exegesis rather you rely your own Eisegesis na wala namang connect sa principle na tinuro ni Paul. Okay ka lang, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
Therefore, the practice perform in LDS church baptism of the literal dead by proxy is a false teaching.
You haven't proved anything, and simply you just created a poorly constructed commentary. Nice Try Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Galingan mo pa.
This is another proof that the prophet of the LDS church was a false prophet.
1 John 4:1 - King James Version
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
At isa pa, ang pagtawag kay Joseph Smith na isang “
false prophet” dahil lang sa issue na ito ay parang assumed na agad ang
conclusion without really proving it. It's true, 1 John 4:1 tells believers to test spiritual claims; yes, malinaw ‘yan. Pero ang testing ay nangangailangan ng maingat na pagsusuri, hindi yung mabilisan na dismissal.
Historically speaking, maraming early Christians ang umamin na may umiiral na practice na parang baptism for the dead, kahit na kalaunan ay hindi sila nag-agree kung paano ito dapat intindihin o gawin (
check out the Commentary below for more detail). So at the very least, ipinapakita nito na hindi basta galing sa wala ang idea - may historical conversation na nangyari. You can still reject the practice, pero fair lang na i-recognize na mas complex ang issue kaysa sa simpleng label agad, arrogante lang ang mag-assume that it is false just because the majority of Christianity did not practice the same old practices, gaya sa sinabi ni Paul sa 1 Corinthians 15. So palagay mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata - Sino kaya itong arrogante na to?
Hindi mo kailangang tanggapin ang LDS teachings para ma-recognize na ang pagbasa nila sa 1 Corinthians 15:29 ay hindi naman careless o ignorant. At the very least, siniseryoso nila ang mismong words ni Paul sa kanyang immediate context, at nagtatanong sila ng isang honest at fair question:
Now ask this the same Question to you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata: Bakit gagamit si Paul ng example na may kinalaman sa “
Dead o mga Patay Literally” kung ang tinutukoy lang pala niya ay yung mga buhay na nagkasala?
In other words base on Biblical Context, hindi nila basta pinipilit ang interpretation. Sinusundan nila yung logic ng argumento ni Paul at ina-acknowledge na may kabuluhan o bigat yung sinabi niya. You may still disagree with their conclusion or this conclusion, pero mahirap sabihin na surface-level lang o walang respeto sa text ang approach nila, nakikita lang talaga na wala kang alam Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.
Other Commentary outside LDS Teachings
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers - The practice known as baptism for the dead was absurd if there be no resurrection. To practise it and to deny the doctrine of the resurrection was illogical. What shall they do? i.e., What explanation shall they give of their conduct? asks the Apostle. There have been numerous and ingenious conjectures as to the meaning of this passage. The only tenable interpretation is that there existed amongst some of the Christians at Corinth a practice of baptising a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. Such a practice existed amongst the Marcionites in the second century, and still earlier amongst a sect called the Corinthians. The idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might be thus vicariously secured for the deceased Christian. St. Chrysostom gives the following description of it:—“After a catechumen (i.e., one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptised) was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the ‘living for the dead.’” Does St. Paul then, by what he here says, sanction the superstitious practice? Certainly not. He carefully separates himself and the Corinthians, to whom he immediately addresses himself, from those who adopted this custom. He no longer uses the first or second person; it is “they” throughout this passage. It is no proof to others; it is simply the argumentum ad hominem. Those who do that, and disbelieve a resurrection, refute themselves. This custom possibly sprang up amongst the Jewish converts, who had been accustomed to something similar in their own faith. If a Jew died without having been purified from some ceremonial uncleanness, some living person had the necessary ablution performed on them, and the dead were so accounted clean.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible - Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield.
Matthew Poole's Commentary - A very difficult text, and variously expounded. The terms baptize, and baptism, signify no more in their original and native signification, than to wash, and a washing: the washing of pots and cups, in use amongst the Jews, is, in the Greek, the baptisms of pots and cups. But the most usual acceptation of baptism in Scripture, is to signify one of the sacraments of the New Testament; that sacred action, by which one is washed according to the institution of Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is also metaphorically used by our Saviour in the Gospels, Matthew 20:22,23 Mr 10:38,39 Lu 12:50, to signify a suffering for the name of Christ. And it is also used thus metaphorically, to signify the action of the Holy Ghost in cleansing and renewing our hearts, Matthew 3:11,12Jo 3:5. The last usage of the term is by no means applicable here. The question is: Whether the apostle meaneth here only: Why are men washed for the dead? Or why are men baptized religiously for the dead? Or why are men baptized with blood for the dead? For the popish notion, that baptism here signifies any religious actions, as fastings, and prayers, and penances for those that are in purgatory, there is no such usage of the term in Scripture; for though in Scripture it signifies sometimes sufferings from the hands of others, as in Matthew 20:22,23 Mr 10:38,39, yet it no where signifies penances, or such sufferings as men impose upon themselves for the dead. Nor doth Paul here say: To what purpose do men baptize themselves? But why are they baptized for the dead?
1. Those that think the term here signifies washing, what shall they do who are washed for the dead? Tell us, that it being a custom in many countries, for neatness and cleanliness, to wash dead bodies, the primitive Christians used that ceremony as a religious rite, and a testification of their belief of the resurrection. That such a custom was in use amongst Christians, is plain from Acts 9:37: but that they used it as religious rite, or a testimony of their taith in the resurrection, appeareth not. And though it be uper twn nekrwn, yet they say uper is so used, Romans 15:8, for the truth of God, expounded by the next word, to confirm the promises.
2. Those that think, that by baptizing, in this text, the sacrament of baptism is to be understood, give us more than one account. Some say, that whereas they were wont in the primitive church, before they admitted persons into a full communion with the church, to keep them for some time under catechism, in which time they were called catechumeni; if such fell sick, and in danger of death, they baptized them; or if they died suddenly, they baptized some other for them, in testimony of their hope of the joyful resurrection of such a person to eternal life. Now admit this were an error of practice in them, as to this ordinance; yet if any such thing were in practice in this church, the argument of the apostle was good against them. But how shall any such thing be made appear to us, that there was such an early corruption in this church? Others say, that some, believing the resurrection, would upon their death beds be baptized, in testimony of it, from whence they had the name of clinici. Others say: To be baptized for the dead, signifieth to be baptized when they were dying, and so as good as dead. Mr. Calvin chooseth this sense: but the question is: Whether the Greek phrase uper twn nekrwn will bear it? Others tell us of a custom in use in the primitive church, to baptize persons over the graves of the martyrs, as a testimony of their belief of the resurrection. That there was anciently such a custom, I doubt not; and I believe that the custom with us in reading of prayers over dead bodies at the grave, doth much more probably derive from this ancient usage, than the papists’ praying for the dead; but that there was any such custom so ancient as the apostles’ times, I very much doubt. There are yet two other senses given of this difficult phrase, either of which seemeth to me much more probable than any of these. To the first we are led by the next verse:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges - 29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead] St Paul now abruptly changes the subject, and appeals to the conduct of Christians as a witness to their belief. This is again a passage of extreme difficulty, and it would be impossible to notice one tithe of the explanations which have been proposed of it. We will only touch on three: (1) the natural and obvious explanation that the Apostle was here referring to a practice, prevalent in his day, of persons permitting themselves to be baptized on behalf of their dead relatives and friends. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Tertullian, in the third century, mentions such a practice as existing in his time. But there is great force in Robertson’s objection: “There is an immense improbability that Paul could have sustained a superstition so abject, even by an allusion. He could not have spoken of it without anger.” The custom never obtained in the Church, and though mentioned by Tertullian, is as likely to have been a consequence of this passage as its cause. Then there is (2) the suggestion of St Chrysostom, that inasmuch as baptism was a death unto sin and a resurrection unto righteousness, every one who was baptized was baptized for the dead, i.e. for himself spiritually dead in trespasses and sins; and not only for himself, but for others, inasmuch as he proclaimed openly his faith in that Resurrection of Christ which was as efficacious on others’ behalf as on his own. There remains (3) an interpretation suggested by some commentators and supported by the context, which would refer it to the baptism of trial and suffering through which the disciples of Christ were called upon to go, which would be utterly useless and absurd if it had been, and continued to be, undergone for the dying and for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Corinthians 15:18). The use of the present tense in the verb baptized, the close connection of the second member of the sentence with the first, and the use of the word baptized in this sense in St Matthew 3:11; Matthew 20:12, are the grounds on which this interpretation may be maintained.
Vincent's Word Studies - What shall they do (τί ποιήσουσιν)
What will they effect or accomplish. Not, What will they have recourse to? nor, How will it profit them? The reference is to the living who are baptized for the dead.
Baptized for the dead (βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν)
Concerning this expression, of which some thirty different explanations are given, it is best to admit frankly that we lack the facts for a decisive interpretation. None of the explanations proposed are free from objection. Paul is evidently alluding to a usage familiar to his readers; and the term employed was, as Godet remarks, in their vocabulary, a sort of technical phrase. A large number of both ancient and modern commentators adopt the view that a living Christian was baptized for an unbaptized dead Christian. The Greek expositors regarded the words the dead as equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, and the baptism as a manifestation of belief in the doctrine of the resurrection. Godet adopts the explanation which refers baptism to martyrdom - the baptism of blood - and cites Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38. In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above.
Other Sources
Response from a Post by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata a.k.a. (Rebuke Ker)
Now, what do we have here, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Have you found a new criticism that has always been debunked, Jose? It's already kaka-boring, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. So, come on, Jose. Give your very best. LOL!
