If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it? (I Cor. 15:29)
2007-11-29 14:33:01 · 5 answers · asked by 2telldatruth 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
plastik punk -Bottom how am i nitpicking, isnt that what paul taught?
2007-11-29 14:39:47 · update #1
moonman Why do I need to explain why it is invalid? When Paul does. Why dont you explain why it is valid?
2007-11-29 14:43:15 · update #2
This referring to people who had become Christians and their baptism let them know they would be reunited in Heaven someday. This in no way is to let us know we can get baptized for someone else. Paul nor any of the disciples or apostles participated in baptisms for the dead.
2007-11-29 14:42:26 · answer #1 · answered by paula r 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Vicarious baptisms for the dead was an accepted, practiced ordinance with the Corinthians and other cultures during Paul's day. It was never meant to be a ceremony, but a sacred ordinance.
Just because Paul or any of the apostles did not participate in the ordinance--if, in fact, that is the case--does not lessen the authenticity of the ordinance.
2007-11-29 22:55:38 · answer #2 · answered by Guitarpicker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
1 Corinthians 15:29 says (since you didn't post it)
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
Doesn't this say people were baptized for the dead? I'm confused.
And why would Jesus go preach to the spirits in prison if they had no chance to get into Heaven? Wouldn't he be wasting His time?
2007-11-29 22:59:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Are you really gonna nit pick the English translation on what Paul said? Lucky for us we have a living prophet and continuing revelation, so we don't have to "guess" what the bible teaches. We actually know.
The word "they" smart guy.
2007-11-29 22:37:39 · answer #4 · answered by plastik punk -Bottom Contributor 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
So are you saying we aren't resurrected? He was saying it is a valid act, because we are resurrected. You are still seeming desperate to stretch the interpretation of things to slant them against the restored gospel. Are you ever going to explain why?
2007-11-29 22:38:32 · answer #5 · answered by moonman 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋