� David Miller wrote:
> DAVEH wrote: > > That is why I found Phillip's 'translation' so interesting. He said > > ".......what is the point of YOU being baptised for the dead by > > proxy? Why should YOU be baptised for dead bodies?" > > > > .........Phillips obviously quoted Paul as though he were speaking > > to the Christian Corinthians and it was they who were practicing > > baptism for the dead.......which implies that they (Christian > > Corinthians) considered baptism a necessary part of their > > salvation. > > Dave, my friend, I have to watch you like a hawk with regard to your quotes. > :-)� J.B. Philips did not say what you wrote above.� Philips wrote, " ... > what is the point of SOME OF YOU being baptised ..." DAVEH:� Yikes......You are correct, DavidM.� I misquoted Phillips.� It was an unintentional mistake on my part.� Sorry. > �As I had mentioned to > you before, Philips was very liberal in how he translated the text. > Literally, in the Greek, it is third person plural, and so ought to be > translated "they," but Philips took liberty to say "SOME OF YOU" which kind > of carries the same thing as saying "THEY."� I can only guess that he > thought it read better that way.� Nevertheless, please understand that just > saying "YOU" as you quoted above would be way too much of a stretch, and not > even J.B. Philips translated the text that way. DAVEH:� Whether Phillips said YOU (as I mistakenly quoted) or SOME OF YOU (as you corrected me).....the YOU part of it is still pretty much the same with respect to my argument.� If what you say about YOU is true in the Greek, then the THEY in the KJV is a more correct perspective, then it seemingly implies that Phillips corrupted the text? > I have examined a few Greek texts and noticed that Nestle-Aland's text, the > Greek Bible that most modern translations are based upon, differs in this > verse from the Textus Receptus, substituting a pronoun for a noun. > Nestle-Aland's text says something like "on behalf of them" rather than "on > behalf of the dead." DAVEH:� Rather makes you wonder why those early Christians were doing something (baptizing) in behalf of the dead, IF the dead didn't need it.� Seems like they must have thought the dead would benefit from their vicarious activities.�� That's the point I'm trying to make. > In any case, please notice that J.B. Philip's translation does NOT support > the notion that the Corinthians as a whole DAVEH:� Whether in whole, or in part.....Do you think those Paul was referring to were Christians??? > practiced baptism for the dead. > It is possible that some of the Corinthians did so, and it is also possible > that it was another group altogether with whom the Corinthians were > familiar.� I have no big problem accepting the idea that some Corinthians > held baptism to be this important.� Many Christians today, such as Mormons > and Church of Christ and the Jesus Name Only group, etc., have similar > convictions about baptism. DAVEH:� Do the JNO folks practice baptism for the dead? > �There are some other Christians today who argue > that Paul never baptized people as this was primarily a Jewish ritual that > hung over into Christianity but was not really necessary for Christian. > Neither of these positions are considered orthodox, but they are recognized > as being the views of some Christians. > > DAVEH: > > Justified or not, it is evidence that some of the early Christians > > believed in the necessity of baptism for salvation much more > > than do most current day Christians. > > What does that mean, "more than do most current day Christians"? DAVEH:� Other than LDS folks, I wasn't aware of others practicing baptism for the dead today.� The popular belief amongst most Protestants seems to be against baptism for the dead.� If there are others, I'd be curious to know about them.� My comment was relative to 'some' early Christians who practiced it compared to apparently 'most' (outside of the LDS realm) modern Christians who eschew it. > We do not > know if there were more primitive Christians or less primitive Christians > with this emphasis than there are today.� I think you read the passage with > the bias that most all the Corinthians believed it, and therefore, most all > Christianity practiced baptism for the dead.� That is a stretch, going > beyond what the text supports. DAVEH:� My point is that however many early Christians practiced, implies that they felt it was needed for salvation.� Do you agree with that, DavidM? > You wrote just 10 minutes earlier the following to Laura: > > DaveH wrote: > > "...as it seems unlikely to me that the early Christians wouldn't > > have practiced baptism for the dead IF they did not think > > baptism was an essential element of salvation. > > Do you see how to me you said "some of the early Christians" but to Laura > you wrote, "the early Christians"?� Let's be clear that it was not THE early > Christians, but rather POSSIBLY SOME DAVEH:� POSSIBLY wasn't in the text.� That is an assumption.� Perhaps ALL of them were practicing it......though I'm not claiming such.� IMO, THE EARLY CHRISTIANS would be an appropriate expression to use EVEN IF it were only SOME of them were practicing it.� SOME OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS might be technically 'more' correct, but THE EARLY CHRISTIANS is not technically wrong.�� THE EARLY CHRISTIANS who practiced it may have been a subset of the whole of Christianity at that time.� If I had said ALL OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN practiced baptism for the dead, then I would agree with your perspective. ��� For instance.......THE MORMONS practice baptism for the dead.� That does not mean that ALL MORMONS practice it.� Quite the opposite.....SOME MORMONS practice baptism for the dead, yet it is technically correct to say THE MORMONS practice it.� At least that's the way I see it, DavidM. > of the early Christians who practiced > this superstition of baptizing for the dead.� As I said in a past post, I > might say to someone in arguing about the validity of the idea of a > resurrection, "why do the Egyptians mummify their dead and build pyramids > and shrines to them, and bury them with their wealth, if the dead rise not." > I might say something about the necessity of blood sacrifice to deal with > sin by saying, "why do the Jews sacrifice a pure lamb, and why do pagan's > sacrifice their virgin daughters, if the sacrifice of blood to atone for sin > was not a valid concept"?� None of these kinds of statements are meant to > justify an action, but to show that there is an innate conscience that tells > us that the resurrection and judgment is coming. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "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.
