Judy Taylor wrote:
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: We didn't derive the doctrine from that single Bible verse.
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: However, baptism for the dead began well in the early part of Christianity, well before the close of the first century. 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?DAVEH: It would have been done vicariously.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?
DAVEH: With logic.
Can you show me by scripture that the thief was baptized with no a physical body? We know the Romans didn't have the time or the inclination to baptize 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.
DAVEH: And that is your conjecture because you accept Protestant dogma.
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.
DAVEH: ??? Is that commonly accepted amongst Protestants? I had not heard that before. I had thought Protestants believed heaven and paradise were one in the same. After hearing your beliefs, apparently it is not. Now I'm wondering if your perspective is a common Protestant belief or just your own conjecture......?
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.
