[Stourme condescends]
[Stourme smiles]
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I'm really happy that you like my posting style. You're welcome.
[CommerceComet repeats]
Look at the pronouns. Prior and subsequent to this verse, Paul uses the inclusive pronoun "us" and in this verse he uses the exclusive pronoun "they". He's making the point that even the pagans among the Corinthians believe in the resurrection of the dead while separating himself from the practice of the baptism of the dead.
[Stourme responds]
Yes yes yes this feeble explanation is all over the evangelical apologetics sites. More quibbling over pronouns. The apologist make the leap, even going back to Homer to find some reference of someone doing a baptism in order to discount this doctrine. Why? Because evangelicals don't know anything about it. The question is being asked ... so they have to come up with something.
Evangelicals are pulling a Bill Clinton.. it depends on what is, is....
The real influence the pagans had on the Christians of Corinth was that they began to deny the resurrection. So it doesn't make sense that Paul would then reference that influence as part of his correction when trying to correct the doctrine.
But...Evangelical apologist have to come up with something. Baptism for the dead is truly a beautiful thing. It allows the living to do a good work by being obedient to the commandments and by acting on faith. To God there is no real difference between the living and the dead. Because the afterlife is not a fairy tale and God is real and there is a plan for us all.
The perspective you ought to consider is that which you must have, your own difference between alive in the body and dead in tresspasses and sins. While in your body, you do not see the 'other side' so you can exercise faith, faithing in Jesus as the only means of deliverance from your sinful state ... not your sin nature which came with your human condition, but your sinful state which cannot enter into God's presence.
When you see/enter the 'other side' there is no longer room to exercise faith. Jesus taught this with His lesson to Thomas, 'blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.'
If you try, as Mormonism teaches, to total up works in anticipation of the day you see Him face to face, you will find He is afar off when you try to cast your works before His judgment seat. He addressed this condition and proclaimed that in that day He will say, 'Depart from me, workers of iniquity, I never knew you.' And are you familiar with what these workers claimed at the judgment seat?
BTW, your posting style is a smartass attempt to be clever. It also slides into mind reading at times, which is a no no at FR, on any thread, but especially in the religion threads. That is one of the posting characteristics you mormon apologists have in common. Your eternal destiny is a bit more important than the snarky smartaleck games.
You confuse ridicule for flattery.
Yes yes yes this feeble explanation is all over the evangelical apologetics sites. More quibbling over pronouns.
Try a substantive response. Exactly, why is it "feeble"? You know that the explanation is all over the place because most people find it compelling. You might label it as "quibbling" because you don't like the conclusion.
Evangelicals are pulling a Bill Clinton.. it depends on what is, is....
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.
The real influence the pagans had on the Christians of Corinth was that they began to deny the resurrection. So it doesn't make sense that Paul would then reference that influence as part of his correction when trying to correct the doctrine.
There are several problems with this but the most obvious is the underlying assumption that the views of the pagans were monolithic.