DAVEH wrote: > I think it is more of a generic form of speech for > something that was relatively commonly practiced. > What good would it do Paul to use a practice of > paganism (or non Christianity) to teach a Christian > principal? It does not make logical sense.
I think it makes sense because Paul often pointed to nature and the voice of conscience. I think the same way as Paul does about these things. For example, many pagan practices are based in truth. Human sacrifice, for example, is based on the idea that without blood shed, there can be no remission of sins. Using it as an example of a first truth, something known to the conscience of all men, is perfectly logical. DaveH wrote: > Now speaking from the perspective that WE are all Christians, > as much as some want to rationalize this passage, I don't > think THEY can easily divorce THEMSELVES from an association > of baptism for the dead and Christianity. I'm not certain that the Corinthians were not practicing it, but even if they were, the language that Paul uses is not one of approval. He says, "what shall THEY do..." Then in the next breath, he says, "and why stand WE in jeopardy." If this baptizing for the dead was something that Paul taught them or that Paul practiced, surely he would have said, "what shall we do who are baptized for the dead" or "what will happen to the dead for whom we are baptized." The sentence makes no sense at all if it applied to himself and what he did or what he taught the Corinthians to do. I still think you are skirting around the language and the use of the third person pronoun "they." DAVEH wrote: > Which only makes the usage of the baptism for the > dead reference so much the more relevant. The Corinthians > would relate to baptisms performed by other Christians, > whereas it wouldn't make much sense if Paul was referring > to non Christians who baptized for the dead. Don't forget their background. I think it very likely that the pagan Greek culture along with Judaic and Christian influence could readily produce the superstitious practice of baptizing for the dead. This could be in several forms, as a Christian sect of the Corinthians, or as a Jewish sect of John the Baptist followers, or even as a pagan sect. I don't know exactly which form it took, but I do agree with you that it would be something which the Corinthian Christians were familiar with. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
