User talk:SparrowsWing/Archive1

Vandalism

You're welcome! I like it to be a pleasant place around here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Vujicic

Hey SparrowsWing,I hope you will be able to do something about this page. This person is an Australian.Nick Vujicic.Thanks rencin24

Sorry no - don't know anything about him. SparrowsWing 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what are you talking about.

My contributions to book were amazing! They were not nonsense!

Your edits were not encyclopedic. SparrowsWing 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry.

My deepest apologies. My son thought it would be humorous to vandalize Wikipedia under my name, most notably his changes to book. Please accept my apology. I deeply regret this incident.

No worries. SparrowsWing 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection

I notice that you deleted a sentence referrring to baptism on behalf of the dead. My view is drawn from John Rueff, author the the Penguin book on 1 Corinthians. Matthew Henry allows that this might be the case. Godet thinks that it might refer to the baptism of martyrdom, but the plain meaning remains an option. I should be intrigued to know what your authority is for excising the passage. I know it is uncongenial, which is why many commentaries omit any reference to it, but I would prefer to stick to the plain text unless it can be shown to be spurious. I have restored it with a qualification. Roger Arguile 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk page) Regarding your comment on my talk page about the Corinthians reference - I was always given to understand that the 'baptism for the dead' referred to being baptised for Jesus i.e. Jesus was 'the dead' that is being referred to? SparrowsWing 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you could give me the authority for this interpretation? My difficulty with it is that there is no doubt that Jesus had survived death (to use a neutral expression) and the Corinthians did not disagree. What they did doubt, however, was whether they themselves would be raised. This is implied by the repetition of the argument about the relationship between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. I have never heard your interpretation or read it in a commentary - which proves nothing: I have not read every commentary - but my view fits the drift of Paul's argument better and has, as I have written, the support of several commentators. It deserves inclusion on these grounds alone. As I wrote in the Paul Talk page, I would prefer to read what Paul wrote. Roger Arguile 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk page) Let me see what I can dig out for you (may take some time) - until then - more than happy to leave your ref up on the article. I'll add a reply on the article's talk page as well for other editors. SparrowsWing 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)