You are not logged in.
From the same 1 Cor 15: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.</font> <BR> <BR>That is a true statement. I pity believers as they have a hope that they spend their whole lives on that will come to naught.
Offline
Hey Bob, do you pray for the dead like gnostic Paul did? <BR> <BR>Didn't he also say somewhere that they baptized people in the stead of the dead?
Offline
I look forward to discussing that with him, but I do not see that as a pattern. The Mormons do, but where else to you sse this reference. Beware of those whose doctrines hang on one word, or one verse or one passage. Study and discernment are the key. You have rejected the Bible for Naturalism already. Why argue it. It is not even logical. It is chance you believe in.
Offline
Neal, I took some time to seek what others, that have spent more time studying this issue have to say about it: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>There also seems to be an implication of the absurdity of baptizing the living for the dead in that which follows the first elements of the verse. To say "What will the position of those who are baptized for the dead be?" would likely be another way of stating Paul's question. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>This question more than likely is referenced by the following verses and not the preceding verse. Again, in context of the portions of Scripture surrounding these two questions, Paul seems to be defending the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead and the absurdity of baptizing for the dead if there is no resurrection. There were obviously those in Corinth and even in the Jewish culture who did not believe in a resurrection, i.e.; the Sadducees. To do anything for the dead other than bury them, is useless. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>All told, there are many interpretations of this verse of Scripture, close to 50, but this explanation seems to be one of the most accurate in relation to the original Greek. The most important thing to realize in all this is that, in the Christian faith, there is no room for "baptism of the dead". During Turtullians time, it was practised more in the heretic circles than in any other. It is a doctrine that as far as I can tell is something that Paul was refuting and in that, there was a defense of the true Gospel of Christ. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.christdoctrines.org/html/dead_bap.html" target=_top>http://www.christdoctrines.org/html/dead_bap.html</a> <BR> <BR>Sometimes, it's better to seek others, and seek counsel than to rely on one's own reasoning. You refer to it as cutting and pasting. Maybe you should do some, instead of plagerizing then spewing it out here. Alot of what you state I know is not your sole reasoning. You just what us to believe you are clever enough to come up with some "plausible" story. Your dog doesn't hunt with me, Neal.
Offline
That's a ridiculous argument. Paul also says why believe if the dead are not raised. Using their same logical sequence it would mean that Paul was arguing against belief in his Jesus. <BR> <BR>Usually, its better to use your own brain than the twisted reasoning of someone that has a job or a superstitious belief at stake.
Offline
Here's their stupid argument: <BR> <BR><blockquote>If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? <BR> <BR>And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? <BR> <BR>If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. <BR> <BR>And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.</blockquote> <BR> <BR>Following their line when attempting to refute baptism for the dead they are also arguing that Paul was against preaching the message, having belief in that message, risking their life for the message, AND that Christ Himself was not raised from the dead. <BR> <BR>Bob, that's why I use my own brain. You should start using yours instead of relying on the paid propagandists.
Offline
I disagree, and think he has a point. People believe that people will be resurrected because of what has been written and taught. They just got a ritual screwed up, no choices can be made after death, their fate is sealed, therefore baptizing for them is worthless, but they do it because they want a good outcome when they are resurrected, nice thought, may make the family feel better about a wayward relative, but it is not Biblically based, other than the misunderstanding of these verses. <BR> <BR>The resurrection of the righteous is Biblically prophesized and a hope one can hang onto. <BR> <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 <BR>15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. <BR> <BR> <BR></font></b>
Offline
<font color="0000ff">All told, there are many interpretations of this verse of Scripture, close to 50</font>...from one of Bob's cut&pastes <BR> <BR>again, making me wonder why, if belief in this whole story is required for salvation, and if in fact it is (as alleged) the inspired word of God,... <BR><b>why wasn't it all presented in a more clear, concise, and convincing way?</b> <BR> <BR>doesn't seem fair to kill people in a Lake-o-Fire who couldn't understand your way of 'splainin things. Especially if God is sposed to be so omni-everything.... why didn't He understand His creatures brains need for evidence to believe? <BR> <BR>or did He create life because He just loves the smell of a great BBQ, burning flesh as claimed in the Old Test? <BR> <BR>even Paul may have been confused ...he apparently thought Jesus was coming back in his day, according to his quote from Thess. above, but spelled out in real English: <BR> <BR><font color="ff6000">all of <font size="+2">us</font></font> (meaning, paul and his contemporaries, right? <font color="ff6000"> <b><i>who are still alive</i></b> will be taken up into the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the sky. From that time on we will all be with the Lord forever.</font> <BR> <BR>so if Paul was confused, how can the Lord blame (and burn) us?
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
Including Pastafarianism, go for it John.
Offline
<font color="0000ff">... but it is not Biblically based, other than the misunderstanding of these verses.</font> <BR> <BR>It IS Biblically based because its a quote from the christian Bible. <BR> <BR>Hello????? <BR> <BR>It is almost impossible to misinterpret this verse. <BR> <BR>Christians try to wiggle around it using weasel words and weasel logic because they can't understand how their great founder of their great religion could actually say that christians were baptizing themselves in the name of dead people. <BR> <BR>Get over it.
Offline
The Pastafarian has spoken. Thanks for your input. <BR> <BR><b><font color="0000ff">Bob, that's why I use my own brain. You should start using yours instead of relying on the paid propagandists.</font></b> <BR> <BR>I recognize not too many people care about Bob Sands opinion,or Neal Walls opinion, not trained in text criticism, you should begin to realize the trouble you can get into by not being fair and balanced by only studying secular sources and regurgitating their view as if your mind created the ideas. At least I give credit to my sources. Isn't there a neme for what you are doing, plagiarism, mental or otherwise?? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on April 23, 2009)
Offline
<font color="0000ff">At least I give credit to my sources.</font> <BR> <BR>That's because you have them handy as you are reading them in order to answer our questions. That gets you into trouble because, in your haste, the first time you find something that looks like it might do the trick you C&P it and many times its from a discredited source or they contradict your premise a few paragraphs above or below the part you quoted. <BR> <BR>Do I need to go through my whole library and search for quotes for you? Or my complete history of every website I have ever been on? <BR> <BR>I read and study many different ideas and documents. Your assertion that I study only secular sources is blatantly false. <BR> <BR>I look for any source of bias in what a person is writing. Look, there is a tremendous audience for those that write in support of the authenticity of the Bible. If you can get a book out that is popular you will make millions. <BR> <BR>Up until recently, those writing in an unbiased way, which would include honest criticism of some parts of the Bible, would maybe make a few thousand. There is no incentive for them to do it. <BR> <BR>On top of that, for 1,700 years, to write or even SAY something critical would get you hung by the church. Then for the next 100 years it would get you a large hole in your tongue after they bored it through with an augur. Its only been in the very recent past that anybody could honestly say or write about the sincere conclusions they came to about religion or the sacred texts. <BR> <BR>In the Arab countries you can still be put to death for being an apostate. <BR> <BR>IOW, it has not been a fair playing field because of the real possibility it could cost you your life to dissent. <BR> <BR>This is the true heritage of your religion. Why would Doherty labor away in obscurity on his Jesus Puzzle up in Canada? Why would Thomas Paine write Age of Reason risking prison or death? Why would a scholar today, after spending years and tens of thousands of dollars to get a PhD from a Divinity school, throw it away by opening his mouth and saying what he really knew? <BR> <BR>So, keep making your accusations about studying secular material only. You haven't read the Bible yet throw around accusations which have no basis in fact whatsoever.
Offline
Is that last comment about Embryonic Stem Cells in anyway?? See ya on the right thread.
Offline