Skip to comments.
Bible Interpretation
Posted on 04/24/2003 4:49:33 PM PDT by Gotterdammerung
In 1 Cor 15 Paul is talking about the ressurection of the dead and if the dead don't rise, our faith is in vain. He cites a practice there in vs 29: "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?" How do you interpret this???
TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS:
To: Gotterdammerung
How do YOU interpret it?
Hint... notice that Paul suddenly stops using the terms "we" and "us" and suddenly uses the term "they" as if he is not talking about "us" anymore.
2
posted on
04/24/2003 5:04:32 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
To: P-Marlowe
One of the early Church Fathers had an interesting take on these verses...
The context is the resurection of the dead. If there is no resurection then why are new christians
being baptized into the church to replace those who have died in the faith.
One might look at the verse this way,
Else what shall new Christians do which are baptized to replace those who have died in the faith, if
the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized to replace those who have died?
But Remember, this is only one way to look at it. Only the Apostle Paul really knew what he was
trying to convey by the Holy Spirit.
3
posted on
04/24/2003 6:41:39 PM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(When someone burns a cross on your lawn, the best firehose is an Ak-47.)
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Only the Apostle Paul really knew what he was trying to convey by the Holy Spirit. If that were the case, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have prompted him to write it in a public letter.
4
posted on
04/24/2003 7:43:14 PM PDT
by
Alex Murphy
(Athanasius contra mundum!)
To: Gotterdammerung
The Church Fathers established a couple of interpretations of this verse: St. John Chrysostom believed that Paul was refering to a heretical practice of baptizing in proxy, somewhat similar to modern Mormon practises, except that the heretical sects of Chrysytoms days (and presumably Paul's) held the ritual over or near the dead man's body:
What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, "They who are baptized for the dead. Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness?"
St John Chrysostom, Homily XL, on 1 Corinthians
He further explains that Paul refered to the practice (notice the rather distant "them") only in passing, and as an example- he neither condemned nor approved the practice, perhaps because the practice had already been condemned. At any rate it has never been accepted by the church at large.
Some Church Fathers also postulated that Paul refered to the idea of the spiritual dead being baptized, and the idea of people being baptized in place of the dead.
At any rate, it is a lone passage, the practice of proxy baptism never being mentioned elsewhere. It was condemned by the Church in the fourth century. And the Mormon proxy baptism does not find antecedent in even the heretical and fringe-ish groups, who all restricted themselves to recently deceased (as far as I can gather).
5
posted on
04/24/2003 8:11:25 PM PDT
by
Cleburne
(a sinner)
To: Cleburne
He certainly didn't say "Why are WE baptized for the dead," did he?
6
posted on
04/24/2003 8:17:13 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
To: P-Marlowe
Yes, that is St. John Chrysostoms's idea: it is perhaps quite likely, for Paul refered to non-Christian ideas elsewhere in his life, without lending credence to the whole belief system- he merely drew on them for some sort of support. It seems quite likely that both Paul and the Corinthians knew precisely what was being refered to here, and got the idea.
7
posted on
04/24/2003 8:32:48 PM PDT
by
Cleburne
(a sinner)
To: Cleburne
His ultimate point was "Hey, brothers,
EVEN THOSE GUYS, believe in the resurrection. Otherwise why would THEY be doing that silly ritual?"
Marlowe Translation (c) 2003
8
posted on
04/24/2003 8:43:09 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
To: Alex Murphy
If that were the case, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have prompted him to write it in a public letter. What you said is accurate. The apostle Paul was able to recieve but so can those who love the Lord be able to receive a witness from the Holy Spirit, to confirn what Paul also received.
9
posted on
04/24/2003 9:00:51 PM PDT
by
restornu
To: Gotterdammerung
Hey Illbay the new name looks good on ya!
10
posted on
04/24/2003 9:10:32 PM PDT
by
RnMomof7
To: restornu
The apostle Paul was able to recieve but so can those who love the Lord be able to receive a witness from the Holy Spirit, to confirn what Paul also received. But the subject wasn't people receiving messages from the Holy Spirit, it was people receiving a written, open message from Paul. Paul didn't write in some sort of secret code, one that requires the Holy Spirit to act as a "secret decoder ring" before it can be understood. Paul wrote a public letter, knowing it would be read publically. The Spirit might confirm it, or even relay it directly, but He wouldn't have to translate or contradict the plain message of Paul's letter for the listener.
11
posted on
04/24/2003 9:31:47 PM PDT
by
Alex Murphy
(Athanasius contra mundum!)
To: RnMomof7
Post a picture of the secret handshake and see if it gets pulled in 10 minutes. If so, then it's Illbay.
To: P-Marlowe
or a quote about "their own species"....
To: Corin Stormhands
or something about moonmen in funny hats...
14
posted on
04/25/2003 6:40:49 AM PDT
by
Alex Murphy
(Athanasius contra mundum!)
To: Alex Murphy
Or that off, off, off, off Broadway show: Seven Brides for One Brother
To: P-Marlowe
Yeah, I think that got it.
To: RnMomof7
What new name?
17
posted on
04/25/2003 7:39:49 PM PDT
by
restornu
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson