From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 3
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:31:56 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <aeG702O423e201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>> It is not talking about preaching
>>> to dead people!  It is talking about preaching to people that are NOW
>>> dead when they were alive.  Check out a modern translation and you will
>>> understand (I know you don't accept the modern translation, that remark
>>> was for the bystanders).
>>
>>Perhaps you could kindly post these few verses from a modern
>>translation for me.  And then continue to explain for me what
>>your comments above mean.  I will provide mmore of a context to
> 
> Be glad to friend!  Here is the NIV version.  I don't have any others
> with me, but if this isn't satisfactory, I'll be glad to send other
> versions later.  Please let me know!
> 
>      "For this is the reason that the gospel was preached even
>       to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged
>       according to men in regard to the body, but live according
>       to God in regard to the Spirit."  1Peter4:6

And how can you tell that this doesn't mean that the gospel was
preached to those that are now dead in the conventional sense of
the word and not some figurative sense of the word.  It still
seems to say the same thing to me as the KJV.

[...]
>>"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
>>
>>"Which sometime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God
>>waited in the days of noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein
>>few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
>>(1 Peter 3:19-20.)
>>
>>So if I understand you correctly, are you saying that all thoses
>>that died in the flood really didn't die but were looked up on
>>some actual prison somwhere and kept alive until Christ came to
>>preach to them after he [Christ] was put to death?
> 
> I didn't say that!  You are adding this to my words.  I am not saying
> this in anger.  Just wanted to point this out, that you were doing such,
> I don't think you are aware of it.

Then where was/is this prison in which the spirits were in to whom
Christ went and preached?

It seems clear that the spirits in question were the ones "which
sometime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited
in the days of Noah, ..." (1 Peter 3:20.)

When did this preaching take place?

[...]
>>> What you mean by "Spirit Prison" is totally refuted in Hebrews 9:27
>>> 
>>> "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after that this the
>>>  judegment".    Heb 9:27
>>
>> How does this verse refute the idea of a spirit prison in the
>> after-life or preclude any preaching occuring there while the
>> spirits there are awaiting the resurrection and judgement?
> 
> What I meant was that "NOW IS THE DAY OF SALVATION" (2 Cor 6:2).  After
> your physical death, your spiritual position is final!  It doesn't matter
> if your ansesstors baptise you by proxy.  You don't wait in a prison
> until you get a chance to accept or deny the gospel. The Bible clearly
> teaches that everyone is such that they do not have an excuse (Romans 1)
> and that your chance to accept or deny that Jesus is God is only while
> you are one this earth in a physical and mortal body. "And as it is
> appointed unto men once to die, but AFTER THAT this the JUDGEMENT!"

And when is the resurrection?  Before or after this final
judgement?  

By your reasoning the resurrection must be after the final 
judgement since Christ was the first to resurrect.  

If that is the case, then why did Christ go and preach to spirits
that had already received their final judgement?  What difference
would it make?  Or is "spirits in prison" a figurative term.  If
so what to what does it refer?

I'm not trying to exasperate you, I just want to see how you
answer  these questions.  I'll accept Alma 37:11 from the Book of
Mormon as an answer if you can't come up you anything better.
(Look it up first before you comment, please.  It's one of my
favorites.)

[...]
>>You don't accept my interpretation of Biblical passages.
>>And I don't accept you interpretation of the same Biblical
>>passages.  And yet we both believe that same Biblical passages to
>>be true and the word of God.
>>
>>I'm conviced that I'm right. 
>>And you're conviced that you're right. 
>>What difference will it make for you to try and convince
>>me against my will that yours is the only correct way, when the
>>way I have choosen brings me such peace, joy, and fulfillment? 
>
> You see Jason, this is not an arguement over Bible interpretation and
> who is right or wrong!  

It seem to me that *that* is the only thing Biblical that we have
been arguing over: interpretations.

> The writer only meant ONE thing when he wrote
> these things down, therefore, one of our interpretations is correct
> and one is wrong. 

Not necessarily.  That's the problem with ambigous and figuative
text.  What was the author trying to say in the ambigous parts,
and how much of the text is literal and how much is figurative?

> If what I believe is wrong, for heaven's
> sake (and I mean literally) I want to know about it. 

All I can say is, study the Bible (which you obviously do), and
try to draw close (or closer -- can anyone ever get too close?) 
to God in whatever way works best for you, and then do what you
feel God wants you to.

I feel a close relationship with my Savior, although it could be
even better, and I'm working on trying to make that relationship
as good as is within my power to make it.

I can only hope (well, maybe pray?) that you are doing the same.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc