The Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

[telnetd]

On 1/8/2026 at 3:26 PM, The Nehor said:

It is important to note that the “firstfruits” was believed to be proof of an imminent return of Jesus setting off mass resurrection very soon. The Resurrection had begun and it was expected it would continue immediately.

After seeing the resurrections that took place in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53), where 
was it expected to continue in their day?

[telnetd]

On 1/8/2026 at 5:40 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you explain how it is logical and persuasive for Paul to refer to an aberrant practice of a fringe or non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine?  Why would that convince anyone?  If this fringe or non-Christian group is wrong about doing baptisms for the dead, then couldn't they also be wrong about the resurrection from the dead?  How would that argument convince any intelligent person?

Paul's argument is why this other group were baptizing for the dead if there was no
resurrection of the dead.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Paul's argument is why this other group were baptizing for the dead if there was no
resurrection of the dead.

But....Who is this "other group"?  If this "other group" is not within the Christian community, then how does it make sense for Paul to use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine (the resurrection)?

And if this "other group" is within the Christian community, then baptism for the dead is a Christian ordinance, or at least a practice that Christians were doing that Paul would recognize as showing faith in the resurrection of the dead.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

After seeing the resurrections that took place in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53), where 
was it expected to continue in their day?

I don’t believe that part of the Matthew account at all. That is bigger than any miracle or even the resurrection of Jesus and it doesn’t show up in the first gospel?

Nah, that is a legend that was added later.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Paul's argument is why this other group were baptizing for the dead if there was no
resurrection of the dead.

Would you believe a practice that Buddhists are doing should inform Christian behaviour?  Burning incense in Buddhism may be done to get rid of bad karma.  Would it make sense for a Christian apologist who was supporting using incense in Christian rituals to use the Buddhist example to explain why Christians burn incense?

Buddhist also use chanting, have monastic orders, sacred places, etc.   Their ultimate goal is nirvana.  Does it make sense to use their practices to justify similar practices in Christianity when the ultimate purpose is fundamentally different?

Edited January 12 by Calm

[telnetd]

On 1/12/2026 at 3:23 PM, Calm said:

Would you believe a practice that Buddhists are doing should inform Christian behaviour?  Burning incense in Buddhism may be done to get rid of bad karma.  Would it make sense for a Christian apologist who was supporting using incense in Christian rituals to use the Buddhist example to explain why Christians burn incense?

Buddhist also use chanting, have monastic orders, sacred places, etc.   Their ultimate goal is nirvana.  Does it make sense to use their practices to justify similar practices in Christianity when the ultimate purpose is fundamentally different?

The Bible does not teach Buddhist practices were incorporated into Jewish and Christian
worship.

[telnetd]

On 1/12/2026 at 2:49 PM, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe that part of the Matthew account at all. That is bigger than any miracle or even the resurrection of Jesus and it doesn’t show up in the first gospel?

Nah, that is a legend that was added later.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon account in 3 Nephi 23:7-13?

"And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi: Bring forth the record which ye have 
kept. And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he 
cast his eyes upon them and said: Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant 
Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that 
the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should 
arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. 
And he said unto them: Was it not so? And his disciples answered him and said: 
Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.
And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many 
saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them? And it came to 
pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written. And it came to 
pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written 
according as he commanded".

[telnetd]

On 1/12/2026 at 2:46 PM, InCognitus said:

But....Who is this "other group"?  If this "other group" is not within the Christian community, then how does it make sense for Paul to use the non-Christian practice of a non-Christian group to convince a Christian congregation of the truthfulness of a Christian doctrine (the resurrection)?

And if this "other group" is within the Christian community, then baptism for the dead is a Christian ordinance, or at least a practice that Christians were doing that Paul would recognize as showing faith in the resurrection of the dead.

Paul was already firm in his teaching that Christ rose from the dead (1 Corinthians
15:1-4).  Then he moves on to his next premise - "Now if Christ be preached that he 
rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"

Maybe the "dead" in verse 29 is a reference to Christ, not other Christians or Jews 
who died without faith in Christ.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at 
all?"

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Do you believe the Book of Mormon account in 3 Nephi 23:7-13?

"And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi: Bring forth the record which ye have 
kept. And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he 
cast his eyes upon them and said: Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant 
Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that 
the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should 
arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. 
And he said unto them: Was it not so? And his disciples answered him and said: 
Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.
And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many 
saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them? And it came to 
pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written. And it came to 
pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written 
according as he commanded".

Not really. I would think that would be such a huge event that forgetting to write about it would be madness. You had a cataclysmic disaster and a voice came out of heaven talking about it. Then the dead walked and taught many people. Yeah, that would be important. The most miraculous event of all those three and it wasn’t limited. It happened to “many”.

I mean the cynical take is that the writer forgot about this prophecy earlier in the text and now they are filling a plot hole. Also seems like the whole idea was just copied from Matthew.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Bible does not teach Buddhist practices were incorporated into Jewish and Christian
worship.

Of course not.  

 It doesn’t make sense to do so (justify something you believe in by supporting it with something you do not).  It would be like claiming America was the best country in the world by pointing out all the wonderful things Russia was doing.  

Edited January 14 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Paul was already firm in his teaching that Christ rose from the dead (1 Corinthians
15:1-4).  Then he moves on to his next premise - "Now if Christ be preached that he 
rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"

Maybe the "dead" in verse 29 is a reference to Christ, not other Christians or Jews 
who died without faith in Christ.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at 
all?"

So it is pretty much ‘what shall they do which are baptized for Christ’?  And this means what to you exactly?

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Paul was already firm in his teaching that Christ rose from the dead (1 Corinthians
15:1-4).  Then he moves on to his next premise - "Now if Christ be preached that he 
rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead?"

Maybe the "dead" in verse 29 is a reference to Christ, not other Christians or Jews 
who died without faith in Christ.

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at 
all?"

But isn't this contradicting what you said, and what Paul said?

You said, "Paul was already firm in his teaching that Christ rose from the dead".  Paul was not teaching that Christ was "dead", but that he was "alive":  "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".

So do you really think it makes sense for Paul to ask, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead [Christ], if the dead rise not at all?"

I'm just trying to look at the meaning of this verse realistically and logically.  What REALLY makes the most sense?

Edited January 14 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

On 1/14/2026 at 1:56 PM, Calm said:

So it is pretty much ‘what shall they do which are baptized for Christ’?  And this means what to you exactly?

 

The living who are baptized for Christ.

[telnetd]

On 1/14/2026 at 1:01 PM, The Nehor said:

Also seems like the whole idea was just copied from Matthew.

The account in 3 Nephi 23:7-13 is some prophecy of Samuel the Lamanite. Matthew's 
version is not a prophecy so I wouldn't say Joseph Smith copied it into the Book
of Mormon.

[teddyaware]

30 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The account in 3 Nephi 23:7-13 is some prophecy of Samuel the Lamanite. Matthew's 
version is not a prophecy so I wouldn't say Joseph Smith copied it into the Book
of Mormon.

As if it wouldn’t be perfectly natural and reasonable for the Lord to want his saints in both ancient America and the Holy Land to be keenly aware of the same criticality important prophecy of a major sacred event that was going to be fulfilled at the time of his resurrection?  Do you also find it suspicious that the ancient American prophets were inspired of God to know and prophesy of the future atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did the fact that the saints in the Holy Land were informed beforehand of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ somehow make it impossible for God to also inspire his people in other parts of the world to know beforehand of the same momentous and critically important events pertaining to their salvation? 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

The account in 3 Nephi 23:7-13 is some prophecy of Samuel the Lamanite. Matthew's 
version is not a prophecy so I wouldn't say Joseph Smith copied it into the Book
of Mormon.

I meant he copied the whole resurrection of a bunch of people story.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

As if it wouldn’t be perfectly natural and reasonable for the Lord to want his saints in both ancient America and the Holy Land to be keenly aware of the same criticality important prophecy of a major sacred event that was going to be fulfilled at the time of his resurrection?  Do you also find it suspicious that the ancient American prophets were inspired of God to know and prophesy of the future atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did the fact that the saints in the Holy Land were informed beforehand of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ somehow make it impossible for God to also inspire his people in other parts of the world to know beforehand of the same momentous and critically important events pertaining to their salvation? 

We are talking about a bunch of other people being resurrected and seen “by many”. What prophecy of the Old World was this fulfilling?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

The living who are baptized for Christ.

But Christ was baptized himself, so he doesn’t need someone to be baptized for him.  With English allowing for multiple usages of “for”, could you be more explicit on what you mean here so I can be sure I understand you rather than having to guess, please?

[telnetd]

On 1/17/2026 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

But Christ was baptized himself, so he doesn’t need someone to be baptized for him.  With English allowing for multiple usages of “for”, could you be more explicit on what you mean here so I can be sure I understand you rather than having to guess, please?

Christ was not baptized as a proxy for a dead person.  We (the living) are baptized 
unto a living Christ as a outward sign of an inward expression of our faith in his 
atoning work. Being baptized for the dead (for Christ, or in other words for our faith
in him) is of no benefit if Christ is not reason. That is what I believe is Paul's point
of the question he posed.

[telnetd]

On 1/17/2026 at 2:59 PM, The Nehor said:

I meant he copied the whole resurrection of a bunch of people story.

We are talking about a bunch of other people being resurrected and seen “by many”. What prophecy of the Old World was this fulfilling?

I don't know. Joseph Smith did the same in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:55-57.

"And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up 
on the cross, after the manner of men; And he heard a loud voice; and the heavens were 
veiled; and all the creations of God mourned; and the earth groaned; and the rocks were 
rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with 
crowns of glory; And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on 
the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the 
judgment of the great day".

What is not clear if this is a local resurrection or worldwide resurrections.

It seems the saints from paradise were taken to the right hand of God in the highest
division of the celestial kingdom and the rest remained in spirit prison awaiting their
judgment.

[telnetd]

On 1/17/2026 at 1:27 PM, teddyaware said:

As if it wouldn’t be perfectly natural and reasonable for the Lord to want his saints in both ancient America and the Holy Land to be keenly aware of the same criticality important prophecy of a major sacred event that was going to be fulfilled at the time of his resurrection?  Do you also find it suspicious that the ancient American prophets were inspired of God to know and prophesy of the future atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ? Did the fact that the saints in the Holy Land were informed beforehand of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ somehow make it impossible for God to also inspire his people in other parts of the world to know beforehand of the same momentous and critically important events pertaining to their salvation? 

I don't take the Book of Mormon as a historical document. But it seems even those in 
Enoch's time knew about future local or worldwide resurrections (Moses 7:55-57).

Much of its themes and events has been copied from the Bible.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

I don't know. Joseph Smith did the same in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:55-57.

"And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up 
on the cross, after the manner of men; And he heard a loud voice; and the heavens were 
veiled; and all the creations of God mourned; and the earth groaned; and the rocks were 
rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with 
crowns of glory; And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on 
the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the 
judgment of the great day".

What is not clear if this is a local resurrection or worldwide resurrections.

It seems the saints from paradise were taken to the right hand of God in the highest
division of the celestial kingdom and the rest remained in spirit prison awaiting their
judgment.

The doesn’t describe anything that would have been noticeable to mortals like in the Gospel of Matthew’s account or the Book of Mormon’s account.

[InCognitus]

On 1/17/2026 at 1:10 PM, Calm said:

With English allowing for multiple usages of “for”, could you be more explicit on what you mean here so I can be sure I understand you rather than having to guess, please?

I think it's more important to consider the various usages of the Greek word translated as "for" in this verse.

Thirty one years ago (literally - January through March 1995)  I had a discussion with James White on AOL about his handling of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in his book, Letters To A Mormon Elder. 

His book said (regarding how to understand 1 Corinthians 15:29), "The needed clue to its meaning is found in the language in which it was originally written, that being Greek.  The word 'for' is the Greek term 'huper'.  It refers to the taking of someone's place, or to substitution."

James White was trying to claim (in his book) that, "Baptism 'for' the dead is not baptism of a living person in behalf of or for the benefit of a dead person, but rather the immersion of a living person in the place of or into the former position of a now deceased person.  It is the baptism of a new convert who takes the place in the church of one who has died."  But this is really forcing the meaning to try to avoid the LDS view on this verse, and that reading doesn't help Paul's logic at all for why baptism for the dead is a reason to believe in the resurrection (it makes it sound as if we NEED to replace people in the church who have died, which has no bearing on the resurrection of the dead one way or another). 

But the definition that he gave of 'huper' actually affirms the LDS interpretation of the verse, since the church refers to baptism for the dead as a "vicarious" ordinance, or baptism by "proxy".  According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "vicarious" and "proxy" are defined as follows:

• vi‑car‑i‑ous adj. ...  2. Endured or done by one person substituting for another: vicarious punishment. 3.a. Acting or serving in place of someone or something else; substituted.
• prox-y n., pl. prox-ies. 1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or a substitute.

The translation of the Greek "huper" as used in the genitive case (as it is in 1 Cor 15:29) would be "in behalf of", such as is expressed by the exact same Greek word [huper] and case found in places like Matthew 5:44 ("pray for [huper - in behalf of] them which... persecute you"), or Acts 8:24 ("Pray to the Lord for [huper - in behalf of] me..."), where rendering the meaning as "substitute" would not translate very well.  Based on this understanding of the Greek "huper", we know that 1 Cor 15:29 could indeed be rendered as it is in the New English Bible: "Again, there are those who receive baptism on behalf of the dead.  Why should they do this?  If the dead are not raised to life at all, what do they mean by being baptized on their behalf?"

I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible when evaluating this verse, but I really can't find any other meaning that makes sense in Paul's argument in favor of the resurrection and why "baptism for the dead" would support that argument unless it was a Christian practice that was done on behalf of someone else who had died.  I've read commentary after commentary on the passage, and many different opinions have been given, but none of them makes any sense to me.

For example, consider the commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29 given by Rev. J.R. Dummelow in his One Volume Bible Commentary (MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, 1908, 1906, and 1936).  On page 919 of his commentary, he writes:

Quote

 

    "29-34.  The practical effects of the doctrine of the Resurrection.  The Resurrection alone gives an adequate motive for (a) baptism for the dead; (b) running risk of death in Christian work; or indeed (c) abstaining from a life of self-indulgence."

    "29. Baptized for the dead]  a very obscure allusion.  There was somewhat later a practice among certain sects of vicarious baptism; when a man died unbaptized, a friend would receive baptism in his stead.  This may have already existed and be meant here.  St. Paul mentions 'baptism for the dead,' without expressing his approval; but some think the practice sprang up later from a perversion of this passage.  Two other views seem possible.  (1) That of St. Chrysostom:  'Before baptism we confess our faith in the resurrection of the dead, and are baptized in hope of this resurrection.'  (2) That of Godet, who regards the baptism as the baptism of suffering, the baptism with which those were baptized who have by martyrdom entered the Church invisible.  But it can scarcely be denied that, as Dr. Dods says, 'the plain meaning of the words seems to point to a vicarious baptism in which a living friend received baptism for a person who had died without baptism.'"

 

So even those without my bias seem to have come to the same conclusion.  And many translations of the Bible pick up on this seemingly obvious meaning:

ESV:  "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"

RSV:  "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"

Paul said it for some important reason that the saints at Corinth would understand, for sure.

Edited January 20 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

Christ was not baptized as a proxy for a dead person.  We (the living) are baptized 
unto a living Christ as a outward sign of an inward expression of our faith in his 
atoning work. Being baptized for the dead (for Christ, or in other words for our faith
in him) is of no benefit if Christ is not reason. That is what I believe is Paul's point
of the question he posed.

Can you explain how your understanding as explained above fits with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:29 and the context of his argument in favor of believing in the resurrection?  Can you please put those verses in your own words so I can understand what you believe it means, and why it would be a persuasive argument to believe in the resurrection for his readers?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

Much of its themes and events has been copied from the Bible.

Would make sense to see similarities in the Book of Mormon as the Bible if both are inspired by the being (God) and both are from similar time periods with even location overlapping in the beginning, so shared roots.

[telnetd]

On 1/19/2026 at 8:00 PM, Calm said:

Would make sense to see similarities in the Book of Mormon as the Bible if both are inspired by the being (God) and both are from similar time periods with even location overlapping in the beginning, so shared roots.

Is Ethan Smith's View of Hebrews inspired by God?