DAVEH: My latest post is in GREEN.......
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: ??? Are you suggesting
the people Paul referred to were not Christians? Or...were not actually
practicing baptism for the dead?
jt: I'm saying that in Corinth there were a lot of heresies and error and
that Paul used this one to show the inconsistency of denying the resurrection
while ATST baptising for the dead. However you will never read of him or any of
the other apostles actually doing it and if it were part of the doctrine of
Christ you would read about it and more than one time. It's not good to make
doctrine from just one comment.
DAVEH: But the point I've tried to
make is that some of the Primitive Christians actually believed baptism was
necessary for their salvation.
jt: I'm not sure which 'Primitive Christians' you are talking about but you
do know that Paul warned about heresies and false teachers rising up and drawing
people after themselves don't you? Heresy began before the 2nd
century.
DAVEH: IF that were so, would there
not need to be "two or more witnesses" suggesting the error of their way?
jt: There are a lot more than two witnesses that warn of false teaching and
false Christs.
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 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?
jt: Jehovah Witness is a cult and normally I don't waste time reading their
Bible and would not unless there was a special need.
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 do you defend such a position? Can you show me by scripture
that the thief was baptised with no a physical body? We know the Romans didn't
have the time or the inclination to baptise him on the cross and after he is
dead there is no point in him identifying with the DBR of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
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.
jt: This is your conjecture because you accept such unbiblical ideas as
Baptism for the dead.
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?
jt: When Jesus Himself makes a statement like "today you will be with me in
Paradise" and we know that the people in Paradise went to heaven with him when
he rose on the third day, I believe that would be a safe assumption.
However, I wouldn't make a doctrine out of it.
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?
jt: No, because following the resurrection Paradise was no more.
Judy
