DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN.......
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: ??? Are you suggesting the people Paul referred to were not Christians? Or...were not actually practicing baptism for the dead?jt: Where do you read that without baptism one can not be fully saved in the Bible?dh: That is why I believe some of the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
jt: It wasn't necessary and they didn't practice it ever.
DAVEH: I agree. But the point I've tried to make is that some of the Primitive Christians actually believed baptism was necessary for their salvation.In the one verse you allude to Paul is using it as an object lesson to communicate something.
DAVEH: IF that were so, would there not need to be "two or more witnesses" suggesting the error of their way?If it was a regular practice there would be two or more witnesses and it would be practiced or at least alluded to in both OT and NT. The Corinthians were into many errors and heresies, this was only one of them
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree. I seldom wonder if what I'm reading in the KJV is translated incorrectly. However, if I were to use the Jehovah Witness' Green Bible, I might be much more questioning.... How about you, Judy.....have you read any part of their Green translation? If you did, would you accept it without questioning its accuracy?and in 1 Cor 15:29 Paul uses the issue of baptism for the dead to show the inconsistency of false teachers at Corinth in denying the doctrine of the resurrection and yet accepting the fallacy of baptism for the dead.
DAVEH: Once again I think you've made a false assumption, Judy. Unless you specifically ask for a quotation from other Latter-day revelation, I will base most all my comments I post to TT from the Bible. I use a KJV of the Bible, and accept is as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
jt: ... and where it is not translated correctly I suppose is where it conflicts with your extra biblical revelation
DAVEH: In the nearly 4 years I have been on TT, I don't recall ever using that reason as an excuse.jt: You may not use it as an 'excuse' per se but I am sure this is where the conflict arises
DAVEH: I do not know that he was baptized. But IF he were, I suspect it would have been by early Christians doing it vicariously, rather than prior to his death. But that is just my conjecture.and this is where you are convinced that your understanding is superior.DAVEH: My point is that baptism is not needed to go to paradise. Baptism is needed to go to heaven.jt: So how did he get baptised without a physical body and with no Mormons around to baptise the dead?dh: Several TTers (including you) have used the "thief in paradise' example to prove me wrong. I am merely trying to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint by showing the inconsistency in their (your) argument. jt: How can you defend such a position? Can you show me by scripture that this thief was baptised without a physical body
in Paradise before he ascended to heaven with Jesus?DAVEH: ??? Who said he ascended to heaven? Do you have a Biblical account of even one witness of such, let alone "two or more witnesses"? If you require me to produce multiple witnesses for something I believed happened in Primitive Christianity, shouldn't you do the same as evidence of your theory?
Your position is indefensible from a Biblical standpoint.DAVEH: And your position is......? If so, then please provide multiple (I'd even be happy to see a single) Biblical evidence the thief went to heaven. From what Scripture tells us, it seems to explain only that the thief went to paradise. What happened to him after that, is not recorded. He may still reside in paradise.....no?
Judy--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
