Replies

Besides the obvious logical fallacy (which if a Mormon critic would have done, DU would been all over it), those are two different situations. Just because Bill Clinton's argument over semantics was specious, doesn't mean that all arguments over the precision of words are wrong. The pronoun usage is clear in English and more importantly, in the underlying Greek.

I would have been all over someone who used blown pronouns that were being misinterpreted, however, your interpretation is also suspect.

How do we know the Pagans practiced baptism for the dead? We don't, however,there was a group, the Sadducees you know the other part of the ruling body of the Sanhedrin was made up of Pharisees)

The Sadducees and the Pharisees differed in quite a few things, but one of the most fundamental was that the Sadducees did not believe int eh resurrection, and practiced baptism for the dead. The pharisees on the other hand did believe in the resurrection, but not in baptism for the dead. By bringing up this argument, Paul put both of them on notice for the illogic of their respective positions, in one fell stroke, he cut both sides to the quick.

Paul was a master, and he used his pronouns very carefully indeed.

Does this scripture prove baptism for the dead is a true doctrine, no it does not. It does prove that Christ, the apostles and the early church were aware of the practice, and used the disagreements over it in arguments to divide their opponents with skill. It does show that it was a known practice, and it is a practice that was never reviled in the Bible.

The communities at Qumran that have been rebuilt give an indication that some revered baptism more than others.

Logically, baptism for the dead makes sense only if you believe in the literal resurrection of man, which Mormons believe. Logically, it was known and not forbidden, therefore, the argument that it is not a legitimate practice for a Christian is illogical.

You have posted with Logic, this I will ask you a logical question CommerceCommet, will you please use the same level of logic you have used here to examine the Pauline use of the Greek "Mia Gune" when discussing the qualifications of a bishop?

I do not believe that Paul (this skilled orator and writer, paused in the middle of a list of qualifications to make a stand on polygamy. IMHO he was way too skilled to make such a logical blunder.

Also note that good "Greek" would have been to just use "Gune" or wife when speaking of a single wife, "Mia Gune" can just as easily be translated as "one wife" and "first wife" or even "at least one wife". I'd love to hear your thoughts on the logic of this placement and this choice of words by Paul, remember, Paul was a careful and educated man who would not have been sloppy about his placement of such a modifier.

I look forward to your response.

Delph