Baptized for the Dead

[Br. Bear]

Greetings Brother,

Godet adopts the explanation which refers baptism to martyrdom—the baptism of blood—and cites Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38.

it is certainly an interesting connection but as to exactly how that translates to the passage in question, i am not quite there yet, if ever i will be?

Reading Meyers works often places many of those earlier students of the Gospel in objective positions and from memory, Godet's submission had some holes in it. I could be wrong, though, as you know.

One thing that is overlooked though, is the reference(s) given, namely Luke 12:50 and Mark 10:38 that Godet draws on.

For accessibility purposes...

But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Luke 12:50

But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mark 10:38-39

and for a little cross reference...

And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt.
Mark 14:36

It alludes to a baptism that is not usually talked about.


As i mentioned in my last post here, Brother, i will venture to put forth what i see as simply misreading what is before us, but, until then,

Let us praise the Lord and know that He is good!


Bless you ....><>

 

[Brother-Paul]

Greetings brother, @Br. Bear

You are a brave man my friend, or you like a real challenge, to be honest with so many not coming up with a definitie answer I have byepassed this verse.

That said, when my own thought are exhausted, not long with this verse I look at a few commentaries as it is interesting how others have viewed this verse. So I also look forward to your conclusion if I may, if as you say you come to one.

I share this, credit below... pick out the good and not so good at your leisure.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Commentary

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, etc.?

This clause can have but one meaning, and that its obvious one, namely that, among the many strange opinions and practices which then prevailed, was one which was entirely unwarranted—but which St. Paul does not here stop to examine—of persons getting themselves baptized as it were by proxy for others who had died. Doubtless some of the deaths alluded to in 1 Cor 11:30 had happened to persons who had been cut off before they were actually baptized; and their friends had as it were gone through the rite in their stead, in the hope of extending to them some of its benefits.

It is argued that St. Paul could not possibly mention such a practice without reprobation; but that is an à priori assumption not warranted by St. Paul’s methods (see 1 Cor 10:8; 1 Cor 11:6). He always confines his attention to the question immediately before him, and his present object is merely to urge a passing argumentum ad hominem. There is nothing at all surprising in the existence of such an abuse in the medley of wild opinions and wild practices observable in this disorganized Church. It accords with the known tendency of later times to postpone baptism, as a rite which was supposed to work as a charm. We also find that the actual practice of baptism on behalf of the dead lingered on among Corinthians (Epiph., ‘Hær.,’ xxviii. 7) and Marcionites (Tertullian, ‘De Resurrect.,’ 48; ‘Adv. Marc.,’ v. 10). Tertullian accepts the words in their obvious sense in his ‘De Præscr. Hær.,’ 48, but accepts the absurdity of “the dead” meaning “the body” (“pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui”) in his book against Marcion (5:10). St. Chrysostom tells us further that the proxy who was to be baptized used to be concealed under the bier of the dead man, who was supposed to answer in his name that he desired to be baptized. How perfectly natural the custom was may be seen from the fact that among the Jews also a man dying under ceremonial pollution was cleansed by proxy.

The “interpretations” of this verse are so numerous that it is not even possible to give a catalogue of them. Many of them are not worth recording, and are only worth alluding to at all as specimens of the wilful bias which goes to Scripture, not to seek truth, but to support tradition. They are mostly futile and fantastic, because they pervert the plain meaning of the plain words. It is a waste of time and space to give perpetuity to baseless fancies. Such are the notions that “for the dead” can mean “for our mortal bodies” (Chrysostom); or “for those about to die” (Estius. Calvin, etc.); or “over (the sepulchers of) the dead” (Luther); or “to supply the vacancies left by the dead” (Le Clerc, etc.). Equally unwarrantable are the “explanations” (?) which make those who are being “baptized” mean those who are “passing through a baptism of suffering” (!). Not a single argument which is worth a moment’s consideration can be urged in favour of any one of these, or scores of similar views. If we are to get rid of everything that is surprising on the ground that it is “immensely improbable,” we may as well discard Scripture at once, and reconstruct early Christian history out of our own consciousness. It has been very usual to represent it as we think that it ought to have been, and not as it was. The disuse of this vicarious baptism among orthodox Christians may have been due to the discouragement of it by St. Paul when he went to Corinth, and “set in order” various erroneous customs (ch. 11:34).

Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 1 Corinthians (p. 488)


What do we get from the scripture and these commentaries, that there are hundreds of ideas, but no real answer, except they were the practices of a disorganised church, one that has come of the tracks and is going in the wrong direction, but these are my thoughts only brother. Why did Paul not condemn the practice immediately, we do not know, except maybe he had that many things to correct and put back on track this may have distracted from the ones he had to priorities.

It is good to look back at the early church, but also important to notice the errors and if and how they were corrected,

I guess also another important item here is that baptism by water doesn't save us.

In His Love

Bless you

 

[Garee]

Greetings brother, @Br. Bear

You are a brave man my friend, or you like a real challenge, to be honest with so many not coming up with a definitie answer I have byepassed this verse.

That said, when my own thought are exhausted, not long with this verse I look at a few commentaries as it is interesting how others have viewed this verse. So I also look forward to your conclusion if I may, if as you say you come to one.

I share this, credit below... pick out the good and not so good at your leisure.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Commentary

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, etc.?

This clause can have but one meaning, and that its obvious one, namely that, among the many strange opinions and practices which then prevailed, was one which was entirely unwarranted—but which St. Paul does not here stop to examine—of persons getting themselves baptized as it were by proxy for others who had died. Doubtless some of the deaths alluded to in 1 Cor 11:30 had happened to persons who had been cut off before they were actually baptized; and their friends had as it were gone through the rite in their stead, in the hope of extending to them some of its benefits.

It is argued that St. Paul could not possibly mention such a practice without reprobation; but that is an à priori assumption not warranted by St. Paul’s methods (see 1 Cor 10:8; 1 Cor 11:6). He always confines his attention to the question immediately before him, and his present object is merely to urge a passing argumentum ad hominem. There is nothing at all surprising in the existence of such an abuse in the medley of wild opinions and wild practices observable in this disorganized Church. It accords with the known tendency of later times to postpone baptism, as a rite which was supposed to work as a charm. We also find that the actual practice of baptism on behalf of the dead lingered on among Corinthians (Epiph., ‘Hær.,’ xxviii. 7) and Marcionites (Tertullian, ‘De Resurrect.,’ 48; ‘Adv. Marc.,’ v. 10). Tertullian accepts the words in their obvious sense in his ‘De Præscr. Hær.,’ 48, but accepts the absurdity of “the dead” meaning “the body” (“pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui”) in his book against Marcion (5:10). St. Chrysostom tells us further that the proxy who was to be baptized used to be concealed under the bier of the dead man, who was supposed to answer in his name that he desired to be baptized. How perfectly natural the custom was may be seen from the fact that among the Jews also a man dying under ceremonial pollution was cleansed by proxy.

The “interpretations” of this verse are so numerous that it is not even possible to give a catalogue of them. Many of them are not worth recording, and are only worth alluding to at all as specimens of the wilful bias which goes to Scripture, not to seek truth, but to support tradition. They are mostly futile and fantastic, because they pervert the plain meaning of the plain words. It is a waste of time and space to give perpetuity to baseless fancies. Such are the notions that “for the dead” can mean “for our mortal bodies” (Chrysostom); or “for those about to die” (Estius. Calvin, etc.); or “over (the sepulchers of) the dead” (Luther); or “to supply the vacancies left by the dead” (Le Clerc, etc.). Equally unwarrantable are the “explanations” (?) which make those who are being “baptized” mean those who are “passing through a baptism of suffering” (!). Not a single argument which is worth a moment’s consideration can be urged in favour of any one of these, or scores of similar views. If we are to get rid of everything that is surprising on the ground that it is “immensely improbable,” we may as well discard Scripture at once, and reconstruct early Christian history out of our own consciousness. It has been very usual to represent it as we think that it ought to have been, and not as it was. The disuse of this vicarious baptism among orthodox Christians may have been due to the discouragement of it by St. Paul when he went to Corinth, and “set in order” various erroneous customs (ch. 11:34).

Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 1 Corinthians (p. 488)


What do we get from the scripture and these commentaries, that there are hundreds of ideas, but no real answer, except they were the practices of a disorganised church, one that has come of the tracks and is going in the wrong direction, but these are my thoughts only brother. Why did Paul not condemn the practice immediately, we do not know, except maybe he had that many things to correct and put back on track this may have distracted from the ones he had to priorities.

It is good to look back at the early church, but also important to notice the errors and if and how they were corrected,

I guess also another important item here is that baptism by water doesn't save us.

In His Love

Bless you

Ultimately the point is no man can serve two teaching authrotiyires as one good master or unseen Lord . The water of the world and the oral traditions of men. Necromancy seeking the dead as if they were living (patron saints)

Yes baptism by the water of the word as doctrines of God , the cleansing power it is the renewing power that falls like rain from heaven, the Holy Spirit giving mankind as the green herbs or called grass its waters of the gospel , The power to believe our unseen God

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if they do not rise. . all of those born again must rise .

Unlike the example with Peter the serial denier who made a claim John would never die. . the dead hope of glorying in the corrupted flesh of mankind

Yet Jesus did not start the "I heard it through the grape vine law of the fathers" Jesus informs us if every time he had to dispel that lie we would need a larger world to hold the volumes that prove .Let the dead bury the dead , We must continue to preach the gospel that falls like rain, the water of the word in a hope they will rise also.

 

[Butch5]

If these things are not so, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?

If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
1Corinthians 15:29


what does this mean? Baptized for the dead?

Tertullian, writing around 200 AD. seems to think it was a practice that some practiced but was outside of Scripture..

Chapter 48.—Sundry Passages in the Great Chapter of the Resurrection of the Dead Explained in Defence of Our Doctrine.

But “flesh and blood,” you say, “cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” We are quite aware that this too is written; but although our opponents place it in the front of the battle, we have intentionally reserved the objection until now, in order that we may in our last assault overthrow it, after we have removed out of the way all the questions which are auxiliary to it. However, they must contrive to recall to their mind even now our preceding arguments, in order that the occasion which originally suggested this passage may assist our judgment in arriving at its meaning. The apostle, as I take it, having set forth for the Corinthians the details of their church discipline, had summed up the substance of his own gospel, and of their belief in an exposition of the Lord’s death and resurrection, for the purpose of deducing therefrom the rule of our hope, and the groundwork thereof. Accordingly he subjoins this statement: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then isour preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Now, what is the point which he evidently labours hard to make us believe throughout this passage? The resurrection of the dead, you say, which was denied: he certainly wished it to be believed on the strength of the example which he adduced—the Lord’s resurrection. Certainly, you say. Well now, is an example borrowed from different circumstances, or from like ones? From like ones, by all means, is your answer. How then did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? No doubt, since you are told that He “died according to the Scriptures,” and “that He was buried according to the Scriptures,” no otherwise than in the flesh, you will also allow that it was in the flesh that He was raised from the dead. For the very same body which fell in death, and which lay in the sepulchre, did also rise again; (and it was) not so much Christ in the flesh, as the flesh in Christ. If, therefore, we are to rise again after the example of Christ, who rose in the flesh, we shall certainly not rise according to that example, unless we also shall ourselves rise again in the flesh. “For,” he says, “since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” (This he says) in order, on the one hand, to distinguish the two authors—Adam of death, Christ of resurrection; and, on the other hand, to make the resurrection operate on the same substance as the death, by comparing the authors themselves under the designation man. For if “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh, since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. “But every man in his own order,” because of course it will be also every man in his own body. For the order will be arranged severally, on account of the individual merits. Now, as the merits must be ascribed to the body, it must needs follow that the order also should be arranged in respect of the bodies, that it may be in relation to their merits. But inasmuch as “some are also baptized for the dead,” we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. “Why are they then baptized for the dead,” he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized?


Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Butch5]

John Chrysostom says it was a practice of the Marcionites who abused Paul's words. He goes on to explain what he believes Paul was talking about in his Homily 40 to the Corinthians.

 

[Brother-Paul]

To me, these things are included in scripture for a reason, we are to discern right from wrong, the truth from the lies, the faithful from the unfaithful, the church (ekklesia) from the world.

It is important in the NT, but even more so I think in the OT.

 

[Garee]

To me, these things are included in scripture for a reason, we are to discern right from wrong, the truth from the lies, the faithful from the unfaithful, the church (ekklesia) from the world.

It is important in the NT, but even more so I think in the OT.

Yes the old establishes. . as to what kind of foundation can wash away our sin making us white as snow ? Whether we are baptized (washed) by h20 which evaporates or the water of the eternal word the doctrine of God that do fall like rain. The kind of doctrines Christ washes his bride with

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 5:24-26 King James Version (KJV)Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[Br. Bear]

Tertullian, writing around 200 AD. seems to think it was a practice that some practiced but was outside of Scripture..

Chapter 48.—Sundry Passages in the Great Chapter of the Resurrection of the Dead Explained in Defence of Our Doctrine.

But “flesh and blood,” you say, “cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” We are quite aware that this too is written; but although our opponents place it in the front of the battle, we have intentionally reserved the objection until now, in order that we may in our last assault overthrow it, after we have removed out of the way all the questions which are auxiliary to it. However, they must contrive to recall to their mind even now our preceding arguments, in order that the occasion which originally suggested this passage may assist our judgment in arriving at its meaning. The apostle, as I take it, having set forth for the Corinthians the details of their church discipline, had summed up the substance of his own gospel, and of their belief in an exposition of the Lord’s death and resurrection, for the purpose of deducing therefrom the rule of our hope, and the groundwork thereof. Accordingly he subjoins this statement: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then isour preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Now, what is the point which he evidently labours hard to make us believe throughout this passage? The resurrection of the dead, you say, which was denied: he certainly wished it to be believed on the strength of the example which he adduced—the Lord’s resurrection. Certainly, you say. Well now, is an example borrowed from different circumstances, or from like ones? From like ones, by all means, is your answer. How then did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? No doubt, since you are told that He “died according to the Scriptures,” and “that He was buried according to the Scriptures,” no otherwise than in the flesh, you will also allow that it was in the flesh that He was raised from the dead. For the very same body which fell in death, and which lay in the sepulchre, did also rise again; (and it was) not so much Christ in the flesh, as the flesh in Christ. If, therefore, we are to rise again after the example of Christ, who rose in the flesh, we shall certainly not rise according to that example, unless we also shall ourselves rise again in the flesh. “For,” he says, “since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” (This he says) in order, on the one hand, to distinguish the two authors—Adam of death, Christ of resurrection; and, on the other hand, to make the resurrection operate on the same substance as the death, by comparing the authors themselves under the designation man. For if “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh, since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. “But every man in his own order,” because of course it will be also every man in his own body. For the order will be arranged severally, on account of the individual merits. Now, as the merits must be ascribed to the body, it must needs follow that the order also should be arranged in respect of the bodies, that it may be in relation to their merits. But inasmuch as “some are also baptized for the dead,” we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. “Why are they then baptized for the dead,” he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized?


Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

thank you for sharing this, Harry.

Some substance therein worth absorbing, especially the pointing towards their (our) vivication in Christ, in contrast to "it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam".

I can not say that it is all well balanced in the sure foundation upon which our faith is built but refreshingly, it examines some aspects that otherwise get little mention or thoughtful consideration.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings brother, @Br. Bear

You are a brave man my friend, or you like a real challenge, to be honest with so many not coming up with a definitie answer I have byepassed this verse.

That said, when my own thought are exhausted, not long with this verse I look at a few commentaries as it is interesting how others have viewed this verse. So I also look forward to your conclusion if I may, if as you say you come to one.

I share this, credit below... pick out the good and not so good at your leisure.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Commentary

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, etc.?

This clause can have but one meaning, and that its obvious one, namely that, among the many strange opinions and practices which then prevailed, was one which was entirely unwarranted—but which St. Paul does not here stop to examine—of persons getting themselves baptized as it were by proxy for others who had died. Doubtless some of the deaths alluded to in 1 Cor 11:30 had happened to persons who had been cut off before they were actually baptized; and their friends had as it were gone through the rite in their stead, in the hope of extending to them some of its benefits.

It is argued that St. Paul could not possibly mention such a practice without reprobation; but that is an à priori assumption not warranted by St. Paul’s methods (see 1 Cor 10:8; 1 Cor 11:6). He always confines his attention to the question immediately before him, and his present object is merely to urge a passing argumentum ad hominem. There is nothing at all surprising in the existence of such an abuse in the medley of wild opinions and wild practices observable in this disorganized Church. It accords with the known tendency of later times to postpone baptism, as a rite which was supposed to work as a charm. We also find that the actual practice of baptism on behalf of the dead lingered on among Corinthians (Epiph., ‘Hær.,’ xxviii. 7) and Marcionites (Tertullian, ‘De Resurrect.,’ 48; ‘Adv. Marc.,’ v. 10). Tertullian accepts the words in their obvious sense in his ‘De Præscr. Hær.,’ 48, but accepts the absurdity of “the dead” meaning “the body” (“pro mortuis tingui est pro corporibus tingui”) in his book against Marcion (5:10). St. Chrysostom tells us further that the proxy who was to be baptized used to be concealed under the bier of the dead man, who was supposed to answer in his name that he desired to be baptized. How perfectly natural the custom was may be seen from the fact that among the Jews also a man dying under ceremonial pollution was cleansed by proxy.

The “interpretations” of this verse are so numerous that it is not even possible to give a catalogue of them. Many of them are not worth recording, and are only worth alluding to at all as specimens of the wilful bias which goes to Scripture, not to seek truth, but to support tradition. They are mostly futile and fantastic, because they pervert the plain meaning of the plain words. It is a waste of time and space to give perpetuity to baseless fancies. Such are the notions that “for the dead” can mean “for our mortal bodies” (Chrysostom); or “for those about to die” (Estius. Calvin, etc.); or “over (the sepulchers of) the dead” (Luther); or “to supply the vacancies left by the dead” (Le Clerc, etc.). Equally unwarrantable are the “explanations” (?) which make those who are being “baptized” mean those who are “passing through a baptism of suffering” (!). Not a single argument which is worth a moment’s consideration can be urged in favour of any one of these, or scores of similar views. If we are to get rid of everything that is surprising on the ground that it is “immensely improbable,” we may as well discard Scripture at once, and reconstruct early Christian history out of our own consciousness. It has been very usual to represent it as we think that it ought to have been, and not as it was. The disuse of this vicarious baptism among orthodox Christians may have been due to the discouragement of it by St. Paul when he went to Corinth, and “set in order” various erroneous customs (ch. 11:34).

Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). 1 Corinthians (p. 488)


What do we get from the scripture and these commentaries, that there are hundreds of ideas, but no real answer, except they were the practices of a disorganised church, one that has come of the tracks and is going in the wrong direction, but these are my thoughts only brother. Why did Paul not condemn the practice immediately, we do not know, except maybe he had that many things to correct and put back on track this may have distracted from the ones he had to priorities.

It is good to look back at the early church, but also important to notice the errors and if and how they were corrected,

I guess also another important item here is that baptism by water doesn't save us.

In His Love

Bless you

Thank you Paul - Brother,

the shared quote from H.D.M. Spence-Jones was quite similar to many if not all the other commentaries and words usually available for us in this day, as with the similar hard copies for those who might have some. I does tend to run along with what today we might see as a copy/paste sort of blogging, and i say that respectfully as i am nowhere even slightly near the scholar these men were.

While it is often advantageous to look at the writings and records that man has made, we must never forget nor forsake that it is to the Author we must turn, for He alone can grant us wisdom in any matter, along with knowledge and unction to do or not with such.
I am often reminded when i get to what seems to be a solid wall to ask Him Who is faithful...

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
James 1:5

and speaking of him that giveth to all men liberally, i am reminded of some Scripture, Old and New, concerning such a grace that comes only from out Lord but more particularly in this case, that which tells us of rain and water (which brings also some of what Garee @Garee has been suggesting.

I do again come back, however, to those verses that you shared earlier pertaining to a Baptism that is not often even discussed let alone in any detail.
But while all that is potentially very beneficial to pursue, it is the verse in question we are looking at.

May i ask, before Paul wrote that part in the Epistle, had some died who had been baptised? Do we get to verses like this and forget that neither martyrdom nor dying nor baptism nor faith began with the Apostle and that while what he wrote was pertinent to the hearer, he was not merely saying 'from this time forth' but was he talking perhaps about those who had died, who had been baptised and what gain would it be to them if the dead rise not in resurrection? From there, of course it would be a comfort for those who follow until the Day that consumes and brings mercy and judgement to pass.

A large part of our verse ought also to be regarding the baptism but due to our habitual nature wanting preeminence, we tend to get overly sidetracked on that subject alone.

Thank you for sharing


Bless you ....><>

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
James 1:6-8

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings all, again,

Have we considered the Apostle Paul in all this?

As i have stated, i am not a scholar and although i have read a number of works on this subject, i can not recall any bring up the possibility of the Apostle, who, from what we read in the New Testament, was acutely aware of his past, before turning to the Lord in faith; of the who-knows-how-many he was in some way or another linked to in their death, they being Believers and Followers of the Way.

If we remember that baptism is intrinsically bound to repentance, if ever there was anything to repent of with Paul (known also as Saul), who was a very law abiding Jew, who possibly had very few other things to repent of (speculative, i know), then the death of Christians would more than likely be on the top of 'his' list.

I will let you deduct from that what you will.


Bless you all and thank you for sharing your posts ....><>

 

[Garee]

Greetings all, again,

Have we considered the Apostle Paul in all this?

As i have stated, i am not a scholar and although i have read a number of works on this subject, i can not recall any bring up the possibility of the Apostle, who, from what we read in the New Testament, was acutely aware of his past, before turning to the Lord in faith; of the who-knows-how-many he was in some way or another linked to in their death, they being Believers and Followers of the Way.

If we remember that baptism is intrinsically bound to repentance, if ever there was anything to repent of with Paul (known also as Saul), who was a very law abiding Jew, who possibly had very few other things to repent of (speculative, i know), then the death of Christians would more than likely be on the top of 'his' list.

I will let you deduct from that what you will.


Bless you all and thank you for sharing your posts ....><>

The foundation of baptism as a kingdom of priest began in the old testament after the old order (Levi) it is transferred over to a new kingdom of priest Christian, believers from all the nations as kingdoms of the world . Water H20 to symbolize the washing and renewing of the word of God a shadow of the unseen Holy Spirit

I would think that Paul who was accustomed to kicking the pricks or what I would call the letter of the law (death ) was given the gospel of Christ that falls as rain from heaven. . healing the pricks and bruises that come from violating the letter of the law of God .

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings Garee,

You mention priesthood.
There is an Order also that we are directed to through what we read in Scripture, that being the Order of Melchizedek.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Br. Bear]

I would think that Paul who was accustomed to kicking the pricks or what I would call the letter of the law (death ) was given the gospel of Christ that falls as rain from heaven. . healing the pricks and bruises that come from violating the letter of the law of God .

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:14

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 8:2

 

[Br. Bear]

1Corinthians 15:29

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?

If the dead rise not at all, for what reason were they baptized? Why, as in, for what reason, and what possibly can they now (or in the future (ever) were those who have since died, baptized?

Not only us, but all those who have died, who were baptized, if the dead rise not at all, for what reason and for what benefit is/was baptism?

Else what shall they do which are baptized ?(resurrection is not a past time - if what we are to understand in the whole passage in 1Corinthians implies a direct connection between baptism and 'rising from death', the validity of baptism is/remains present, meaning they are baptized... therefore at the Resurrection that baptism is as present as when it was 'undergone', it could be likened to being presently sealed by baptism, so we can speak of the past in the present [consider references such as the Lord Who was and is and will be, an ever present help - from the foundation of the world - before Abraham was, I am]
For the dead... if the dead rise not at all, for why are they then baptized?

We could almost say, "it's a bit pointless, eh?"
Should their hope perish with them ?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Peter 1:3


Bless you ....><>

 

[Garee]

1Corinthians 15:29

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?

If the dead rise not at all, for what reason were they baptized? Why, as in, for what reason, and what possibly can they now (or in the future (ever) were those who have since died, baptized?

Not only us, but all those who have died, who were baptized, if the dead rise not at all, for what reason and for what benefit is/was baptism?

Else what shall they do which are baptized ?(resurrection is not a past time - if what we are to understand in the whole passage in 1Corinthians implies a direct connection between baptism and 'rising from death', the validity of baptism is/remains present, meaning they are baptized... therefore at the Resurrection that baptism is as present as when it was 'undergone', it could be likened to being presently sealed by baptism, so we can speak of the past in the present [consider references such as the Lord Who was and is and will be, an ever present help - from the foundation of the world - before Abraham was, I am]
For the dead... if the dead rise not at all, for why are they then baptized?

We could almost say, "it's a bit pointless, eh?"
Should their hope perish with them ?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Peter 1:3


Bless you ....><>

I would think that baptism you referred to is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And not the ceremonial a shadow of the unseen work using H20 a metaphor to signify the unseen "water of the word" or doctrine of God .. showing others in the congregation a person has a desire to become a member of the priesthood of believers

If the Holy Spirit does baptize what he hoped for will rise. In that way in a parable green grass or tender herbs describe the rising work . If they do not rise .then they have not e receive the doctrine of Our God .But considered dead.

The color green is used that way 44 times in the Bible to represent those born again from above.


Deuteronomy 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings Garee,

I would think that baptism you referred to is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And not the ceremonial a shadow of the unseen work using H20 a metaphor to signify the unseen "water of the word" or doctrine of God .. showing others in the congregation a person has a desire to become a member of the priesthood of believers

If the Holy Spirit does baptize what he hoped for will rise. In that way in a parable green grass or tender herbs describe the rising work . If they do not rise .then they have not e receive the doctrine of Our God .But considered dead.

The color green is used that way 44 times in the Bible to represent those born again from above.


Deuteronomy 32:2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

do you think this is the baptism that the Apostle was referring to, in the verse we are looking at?


Bless you ....><>