-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It goes back to and addresses this statement of yours:
Eternal life was a given from the placement of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.
Whether or not one lives on after death is rather central to the gospel message.
Life exists in Christ alone. He is the light and life of men.
Some would say Abraham understood this as well.
David was certainly aware of it.
Eternal life was a given from the placement of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.
Whether or not one lives on after death is rather central to the gospel message.
Life exists in Christ alone. He is the light and life of men.
Some would say Abraham understood this as well.
David was certainly aware of it.
-
2
- Show all
P
This is clear enough to me
I know in the book of Hebrews, should say almost sure, Abraham had faith but like your next statement>>>
Seems that scripture indicates that writers of OT did not necessarily, in many cases or some cases or most cases, understand what the true meaning was of what they were writing. Maybe this is just some thought I got in my head. But praying for others deceased????
Anyway some things still trouble me and maybe I just have to live with it. At least things trouble me which is progress. Better than not caring. Don't know bout you but RC's I know pull the old, "You were baptized so you are". And I aren't. And RC's make it easy. Go to the priest.
I know in the book of Hebrews, should say almost sure, Abraham had faith but like your next statement>>>
Seems that scripture indicates that writers of OT did not necessarily, in many cases or some cases or most cases, understand what the true meaning was of what they were writing. Maybe this is just some thought I got in my head. But praying for others deceased????
Anyway some things still trouble me and maybe I just have to live with it. At least things trouble me which is progress. Better than not caring. Don't know bout you but RC's I know pull the old, "You were baptized so you are". And I aren't. And RC's make it easy. Go to the priest.
-
1
- Show all
I have had similar thoughts regarding the understanding of those writing the OT Scriptures. One cannot help but wonder about such things, given how advanced many in the modern world feel they/we are compared to those of antiquity. How well I remember some of the claims of atheists and secular humanists during my years of conversing with them before joining here. One claimed we (humans) knew everything there was to know. Another told me he could explain how consciousness arose from inorganic matter. As if!!! LOL. Another asserted that nobody could confidently claim that God existed because "we" (Christians) had not examined all the evidence. Yet he would also assert that God did not exist even though he had not examined all the evidence! I did learn a lot speaking with non-believers over all those years, and have fond memories of those times and people. I was young in my Christian walk, then.
My mother and oldest brother also questioned why I was getting baptized again since I had been baptized as an infant. But I do not recall us ever praying for the dead, beyond such things as rest in peace, and God keep him/her, and the like. I associate praying for the dead more or mostly with Mormonism. They have very extensive family history records for that reason, reaching back much farther than ancestry.com does.
My mother and oldest brother also questioned why I was getting baptized again since I had been baptized as an infant. But I do not recall us ever praying for the dead, beyond such things as rest in peace, and God keep him/her, and the like. I associate praying for the dead more or mostly with Mormonism. They have very extensive family history records for that reason, reaching back much farther than ancestry.com does.
-
1
- Show all
Short answer: NO. Why? Because their eternal destiny is already sealed. False religionists pray for the dead. But Christians know that the moment someone dies they are either in Heaven or Hades, and there is no changing that. This is exactly why the Gospel must be preached to every creature.
Until the resurrection of Christ all souls and spirits went to Hades (in the heart of the earth). But there was a huge chasm between the righteous and unrighteous dead, and there was no crossing over in either direction. When Christ rose from the dead He took all the saints (the righteous dead) to Heaven, and they are all in the New Jerusalem. But the unrighteous dead continue to go to Hades.
Until the resurrection of Christ all souls and spirits went to Hades (in the heart of the earth). But there was a huge chasm between the righteous and unrighteous dead, and there was no crossing over in either direction. When Christ rose from the dead He took all the saints (the righteous dead) to Heaven, and they are all in the New Jerusalem. But the unrighteous dead continue to go to Hades.
-
1
- Show all
P
When going through the things left of some of my deceased relatives I have found documentation from RC organizations indicating donations for perpetual masses and to me this seems to indicate 'praying for the dead'. I don't even accept the RC mass as valid worship or prayerfulness to The One True God. I am almost certain this is still the common practice of RCC.
The matters you mention regarding atheistic views it surprises me that you seem to be opposed to my post regarding John Lennox as he is seemingly single handedly proving some of the leading supporters of atheistic 'theories' wrong. I don't understand your opposition to Lennox's efforts.
The matters you mention regarding atheistic views it surprises me that you seem to be opposed to my post regarding John Lennox as he is seemingly single handedly proving some of the leading supporters of atheistic 'theories' wrong. I don't understand your opposition to Lennox's efforts.
P
I sort of get the same sense of where we go after death as you post here.
But then I also have a part of me that says all who have ever lived will stand before Jesus in 'Heaven's Court'. There is a version of one Psalm, don't know which, that is titled 'Heaven's Court'. Or at least subtitled so. Or possibly I got the idea listening to Spurgeon sermons.
Can you come up with scriptures referencing the position you posted here?
But then I also have a part of me that says all who have ever lived will stand before Jesus in 'Heaven's Court'. There is a version of one Psalm, don't know which, that is titled 'Heaven's Court'. Or at least subtitled so. Or possibly I got the idea listening to Spurgeon sermons.
Can you come up with scriptures referencing the position you posted here?
Sure. Just go to Acts 7 & 8 and study the death of Stephen, the first martyr. Then recall what Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (who is in Heaven). Then go to Hebrew 9:27 which says: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment... This refers to the unsaved dead, since there is no judgment for those who are in Christ and have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. Stephen (his soul and spirit) went to be with Christ directly.
-
1
- Show all
P
When I posted a video of Lennox testimony it was not responded to and when a video of the preacher HealthandHappiness posted it seemed that you and Cameron were enthusiastically supporting that preacher but never responded regarding Lennox. Which the preacher HH is seemingly so pleased with is ok but I feel that it is a completely different approach then what I was hoping for that post.
It's all good but the only ones that supported Lennox were not too enthusiastic it seems. I know Lennox is not delivering the same kind of message and I don't think some people even bothered to read what I asked as the response was minimal. Seems that you responded to HH immediately and that is fine if you like that kind of preaching and are more interested in supporting him that is ok.
I told HH much earlier that I would walk out if not run out of a place with the preachers he likes. To me and this is something I already posted, it would have been much more likely that Lennox would have caught my attention as an atheist. My view is that Lennox is able to draw his audiences in and keep them under his control. He seems to me to 'prove' to some the absurdity of their viewpoints with a very convincing exposition of the secularists viewpoints flaws.
I really doubt that HH, Cameron and possibly you watched any of Lennox in action. Particularly at the Norwegian university. On that video you can see the excellent control of the audience he has. I know too that likely no one read my response to pottersclay so here briefly my sense is that Lennox is attempting to cut off the head of the snake. HH is ok to support people he wants to support and I am supporting people I want to support. It's all good yet a bit different.
After watching Lennox I joined up with the Trinity Forum where he is a senior fellow I believe. Then by way of Trinity Forum, almost certain, came across 'The Clergy Project' which I now posted on the Miscellaneous Forum as 'Restore to Faith' if it goes through. Not sure it will since it references a group that reject God. Here too the post of Lennox's testimony speaks of the Christian bubble which some may not even be aware that this exists.
Not that it directly applies here but may in the extreme apply to certain groups. Maybe JW's or Mormons or some other group. Not certain which if any or if it is a phenomenon on an individual basis.
It's all good but the only ones that supported Lennox were not too enthusiastic it seems. I know Lennox is not delivering the same kind of message and I don't think some people even bothered to read what I asked as the response was minimal. Seems that you responded to HH immediately and that is fine if you like that kind of preaching and are more interested in supporting him that is ok.
I told HH much earlier that I would walk out if not run out of a place with the preachers he likes. To me and this is something I already posted, it would have been much more likely that Lennox would have caught my attention as an atheist. My view is that Lennox is able to draw his audiences in and keep them under his control. He seems to me to 'prove' to some the absurdity of their viewpoints with a very convincing exposition of the secularists viewpoints flaws.
I really doubt that HH, Cameron and possibly you watched any of Lennox in action. Particularly at the Norwegian university. On that video you can see the excellent control of the audience he has. I know too that likely no one read my response to pottersclay so here briefly my sense is that Lennox is attempting to cut off the head of the snake. HH is ok to support people he wants to support and I am supporting people I want to support. It's all good yet a bit different.
After watching Lennox I joined up with the Trinity Forum where he is a senior fellow I believe. Then by way of Trinity Forum, almost certain, came across 'The Clergy Project' which I now posted on the Miscellaneous Forum as 'Restore to Faith' if it goes through. Not sure it will since it references a group that reject God. Here too the post of Lennox's testimony speaks of the Christian bubble which some may not even be aware that this exists.
Not that it directly applies here but may in the extreme apply to certain groups. Maybe JW's or Mormons or some other group. Not certain which if any or if it is a phenomenon on an individual basis.
Watched any of Lennox in action - when? I did watch part of the video you posted. I have seen a number of his videos and debates in years gone by. As to any video H&H may have posted, I have no idea what you are talking about. H&H posts a lot of videos, and links to TikTok stuff. Some of the vids are ones he has posted before, and I do not watch them. I do check out some of the TikTok content. Cameron has a great sense of humour, and we joke around with each other. I am sorry if any of that offends you. I have not been well and honestly don't have the energy to respond to a lot of what gets posted. I certainly never meant to offend you in any way 
-
2
- Show all
1 Corinthians 15:29
Contemporary English Version
29 If the dead are not going to be raised to life, what will people do who are being baptized for them? Why are they being baptized for those dead people?
Has to do with false teachers. Note that Paul says "Why are they"??? Not why are we in the church.
Contemporary English Version
29 If the dead are not going to be raised to life, what will people do who are being baptized for them? Why are they being baptized for those dead people?
Has to do with false teachers. Note that Paul says "Why are they"??? Not why are we in the church.
-
1
- Show all
P
That verse is hard for me to understand. Never noticed it before and the phrase, '...baptized for the dead....' in KJV still doesn't make sense to me. Neither does '....baptized for them...' make sense to me. I am going to look at the commentaries on this. This must be some of what Peter claims of Paul's writing being difficult. It is to me cause I don't see at all what it means.
Among mystry religions back them some of them did baptism of the dead.
Historical Background:
"
Clement's Excerpta ex Theodoto relates that Theodotus’ Gnostics believed that the ones who are baptized in 1 Corinthians 15 are angels, spirit creatures who had escaped imprisonment in matter. Only pure spirit beings are truly alive and only they can begin the redemption process. The ones for whom they are baptized are human beings, whom Theodotus’ group considered to be dead due to being trapped in bodies of flesh. An angel must first be baptized in heaven on behalf of a “dead” human, followed by the human's own baptism on earth. Being prisoners of the flesh and the material world and dead to the spiritual, humans cannot start the process. According to Clement, 1 Corinthians 15.29 refers to this Gnostic concept. Neither Paul, Clement, nor the Gnostics taught that humans still in material bodies were baptized for deceased humans.
To Theodotus' Gnostics, “resurrection” meant that the soul is freed from the body and raised up to equality with the angels in a purely spiritual world, a world of true life with the original divine spirit parents. Note also that one of the main themes in 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection and incorrect views about it. It is not a discussion about baptism. It does touch on baptism for the dead but only secondarily to the resurrection of our material bodies; Paul mentions baptism for the dead only as part of an argument against the Gnostics' eccentric notions on the resurrection, in order to turn their theories against them.
The strange dogmas described in Excerpta ex Theodoto were based on the secret knowledge Gnostics claimed they alone possessed. Paul's warning in 1 Timothy 6.20 against “what is falsely called knowledge” (RSV) indicates that the Apostle both knew about and opposed Gnosticism, including the idea of angelic baptism for the spiritually dead and other Gnostic tenets described by Clement 150 years later. Paul's counsel in 1 Timothy 1.4 and Titus 3.9 to avoid "endless genealogies" remind us of both the Gnostics' lines of descent from the original spirit parents and also the archival research of modern-day practitioners of baptism for the dead.
Briefly, what 1 Corinthians 15.29 refers to is this Gnostic concept. Neither Paul nor the Gnostics taught that humans still in material bodies were baptized for deceased humans. Note that 1 Corinthians 15.29 does not ask “what shall we do which are baptized for the dead” but rather “what shall they do”. The Excerpta ex Theodoto indicates that “they” are the angels, not Christians on earth. Such “baptism for the dead” was not a standard or apostolic Christian doctrine but a Gnostic one, which Paul and Clement used against these heretics.
We now turn to the evidence of Tertullian’s Against Marcion that there was an another aberrant Christian sect that believed in baptism for the dead. This book was written sometime between AD 207 and 232 by a prominent lawyer who had converted to Christianity and became a Christian leader. Tertullian wrote against many heresies, including that of the Marcionites.
"
https://mit.irr.org/ancient-gnostic-heretics-and-baptism-dead
Historical Background:
"
Clement's Excerpta ex Theodoto relates that Theodotus’ Gnostics believed that the ones who are baptized in 1 Corinthians 15 are angels, spirit creatures who had escaped imprisonment in matter. Only pure spirit beings are truly alive and only they can begin the redemption process. The ones for whom they are baptized are human beings, whom Theodotus’ group considered to be dead due to being trapped in bodies of flesh. An angel must first be baptized in heaven on behalf of a “dead” human, followed by the human's own baptism on earth. Being prisoners of the flesh and the material world and dead to the spiritual, humans cannot start the process. According to Clement, 1 Corinthians 15.29 refers to this Gnostic concept. Neither Paul, Clement, nor the Gnostics taught that humans still in material bodies were baptized for deceased humans.
To Theodotus' Gnostics, “resurrection” meant that the soul is freed from the body and raised up to equality with the angels in a purely spiritual world, a world of true life with the original divine spirit parents. Note also that one of the main themes in 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection and incorrect views about it. It is not a discussion about baptism. It does touch on baptism for the dead but only secondarily to the resurrection of our material bodies; Paul mentions baptism for the dead only as part of an argument against the Gnostics' eccentric notions on the resurrection, in order to turn their theories against them.
The strange dogmas described in Excerpta ex Theodoto were based on the secret knowledge Gnostics claimed they alone possessed. Paul's warning in 1 Timothy 6.20 against “what is falsely called knowledge” (RSV) indicates that the Apostle both knew about and opposed Gnosticism, including the idea of angelic baptism for the spiritually dead and other Gnostic tenets described by Clement 150 years later. Paul's counsel in 1 Timothy 1.4 and Titus 3.9 to avoid "endless genealogies" remind us of both the Gnostics' lines of descent from the original spirit parents and also the archival research of modern-day practitioners of baptism for the dead.
Briefly, what 1 Corinthians 15.29 refers to is this Gnostic concept. Neither Paul nor the Gnostics taught that humans still in material bodies were baptized for deceased humans. Note that 1 Corinthians 15.29 does not ask “what shall we do which are baptized for the dead” but rather “what shall they do”. The Excerpta ex Theodoto indicates that “they” are the angels, not Christians on earth. Such “baptism for the dead” was not a standard or apostolic Christian doctrine but a Gnostic one, which Paul and Clement used against these heretics.
We now turn to the evidence of Tertullian’s Against Marcion that there was an another aberrant Christian sect that believed in baptism for the dead. This book was written sometime between AD 207 and 232 by a prominent lawyer who had converted to Christianity and became a Christian leader. Tertullian wrote against many heresies, including that of the Marcionites.
"
https://mit.irr.org/ancient-gnostic-heretics-and-baptism-dead
-
1
-
1
- Show all
P
Thanks!!!!! Yea now I start to get it. I don't know if you are familiar with John Lennox, but he is using Paul's tactics in his messages. Lennox has been around for some time but new to me and I posted a couple of his videos. I haven't yet checked the commentaries at Bible hub but that will be interesting to see compared to your post here.
-
1
- Show all
P
Barnes commentary is also along the lines of Clement>>>>>1 Corinthians 15:29>>but states the reality of facts is lost and goes on to state some possible practices.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen:
(1) It has been held by some that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one."
(2) by others, that the word "baptized" here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Matthew 8:4; Hebrews 9:10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.
(3) by others, that to be "baptized for the dead" means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.
(4) by others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:
(a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.
(b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.
(c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?"
(d) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.
(5) there remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Matthew 20:22-23; Mark 10:39; Luke 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, that is, in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson (see the Lexicon article Βαπτίζω Baptizō), and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it:
(a) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word "baptize."
(b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.
(c) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.
(d) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase "for the dead;" and,
continued...
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen:
(1) It has been held by some that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one."
(2) by others, that the word "baptized" here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Matthew 8:4; Hebrews 9:10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.
(3) by others, that to be "baptized for the dead" means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.
(4) by others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:
(a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.
(b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.
(c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?"
(d) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.
(5) there remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Matthew 20:22-23; Mark 10:39; Luke 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, that is, in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson (see the Lexicon article Βαπτίζω Baptizō), and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it:
(a) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word "baptize."
(b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.
(c) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.
(d) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase "for the dead;" and,
continued...
-
2
- Show all