No ressurection?

by radar 3 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  radar

  Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we are to die!

  This is how the Apostle Paul responded to some who were saying in his day, “there is no resurrection”
  Obviously from this reasoning, there was confusion amongst some as to what actually happens at death.
  Greek philosophy, which led some people, such as the Epicureans, to lead a life of pleasure, was obviously apparent during that Christian time period.

  This raises important questions to those who today argue that the evidence of Christ’s resurrection was clearly seen by those that lived during that time period and those that did not see the resurrection, could easily speak to others that did and so collaborate the event.
  Surely such divisions should not have existed on such important subject as this and also, so near to the miraculous event.

  It’s apparent that divisions and confusion on “life and death” matters of faith, have always been with those that follow the God of the Bible, which leaves his subjects fighting amongst themselves. Why even at the time of Babel God confused the languages setting up barriers to truth and harmony throughout the world.
• 

  misty

  Then why did He bother to leave us the Bible and keep it intact? And why fill it with things that make sense in life? And why fill it with proof of inspiration such as prophecies, and scientific knowledge written in advance? Don't you think he had a purpose for sifting the believers and unbelievers, and that foolishness as seen by men would in the long run, prove who is good harvest material?
• 

  Moxy

  ive thought the same thing radar. shed everything youve been taught and read pauls letters as though you were there and you get a very different sense of the early christians. paul and his brand of christians were definitely expecting christs return immediately and to be resurrected in heaven immediately. i dont know how we all could have believed differently, that they were prophesying about things to come thousands of years after. paul appears desperate to prove his faith to skeptics who found his resurrection 'proof' to be far from adequate. his best proof at the time (and still the best one today for apologists) is simply the fact that people were willing to die for their belief. besides being a very poor line of evidence, this speech to corinth reveals that there were very many christians who were *not* willing to die and were *not* all that convinced. if the writings of his critics were preserved as well as the bible we'd probably learn a lot about what it was really like there, and obviously have a much more balanced picture of the early christians. victors write the history.

  mox
• 

  FrankRaven

  Even though Luke 24:39,says that Jesus was not a spirit,the WatchTower keeps says He was a spirit.And if Christ came back as a spirit,that means God had to create the extra spirit,therefore the resurrection never came.That means our faith has been in vain.

  RevFrank