A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul (page 6)

Fisherman

Viv, are you saying that if God communicated with you same as he did with Abraham before he decided to have faith and same as he did with Noah before he decided to build the ark, that is not proof?

Simon

But the kindest, most rational Christian just cannot escape Paul's logic quoted above; if Christ is not risen your faith is in vain. The absurdity of all this is that faith is required to believe the very thing that makes faith futile

I can't remember the exact verse, but in one of the minor books in the NT there is something along the lines of "if anyone denies that Christ was resurrected in the flesh, they are a false believer, do not welcome them in".

Ironic because this is the very thing that the WTS teaches - that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature. After all, he was supposed to be sacrificing his right to earthly physical human life (yeah, to go back to slumming it as lord of the galaxy super-hero) but if he just created a new body, well, what sacrifice really was it?

Right there, in their own bible, is the belief that contradicts what they teach.

But then if he was in another meat-suit (why he wasn't recognized), then what was the point of having holes cut out of the hands to convince the disciples? Wasn't it the ultimate con?

It's almost like the whole thing is made up ... LOL

Viviane

Viv, are you saying that if God communicated with you same as he did with Abraham before he decided to have faith and same as he did with Noah before he decided to build the ark, that is not proof?

Proof of what? That a flood would come? That I would be pregnant at 90? Proof that a god exists? Proof that I need to see a doctor? Proof that an incredibly advanced alien was pretending to be god?

How did Abraham know he was talking to god, specifically? Some guy writing down that some other guy talked to god isn't "proof" of anything.

Cold Steel

NeverAJW »
1. goes to heaven...yeah right
2. never came back.

How do you He never came back?

You're making a huge asumption.

After Jesus ascended to the Father, He returned and spent 40 days (allegedly) with his disciples (Acts 1), who witnessed the event. Most of them were later brutally murdered rather than renounce their testimonies. You may not be a Christian. You may not believe in the resurrection. Fine. People can believe or not believe.

But in discussing resurrection, first, how does one define it? And why does it fascinate atheists and non-Christians? Some religions believe in reincarnation, which is an idea that scares the Hell out of me (I ain't coming back!). But it's the physical resurrection that seems to bother people. Jesus didn't seem to be in hiding. He walked the same roads and many people saw Him, conversed with him and arrested to it. And, as I said, they gave their lives to seal their testimonies.

Cold Steel

Fisherman » Proof is about the present. Faith is about the future. Let's say for example that a person prayed to God for solid proof and that person got that proof to his or her satisfaction. ... without solid proof, faith crumbles. At least for me; I need solid evidence of something in action that I can observe; and based on my present observations, I can predict future actions of that something, but only if that something proves to be faithful in the future -a chance I have to take. That chance is faith.

Proof does not provide long term motivation: that can come only from the Spirit of God. "If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." (James 1:5) When man initially meets God or sees an angel, they fear what they're experiencing. The light, the glory, standing above the floor. These are supernatural. The person is weak, drained by the experience. But as time passes, it becomes less frightning. You gain power and confidence. But God does not just come to people until they show faith. Not only in expectation but in action. Why did Jesus reveal Himself to Paul and not others who were enemies of Christ? Why not the Emperor Nero? And why did He reveal Himself to others? (He certainly has not shown Himself to me.) There's always a method and a purpose. Paul was foreordained as was Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5). Nero wasn't.

By faith, one may find proof, but it comes after you've proven yourself. Faith comes first, confirmation later.

Fisherman

Proof does not provide long term motivation:

You are wrong about that. But then it depends on the man. Proof was all that Paul needed. As a Pharisee, Paul was spiritually blind, He saw things the Jewish way and thought in those terms. No argumentation or reasoning from the scriptures could have convinced Paul. He saw and spoke with the resurrected JC in heavenly glory -he knew with certainty, but he still needed faith that he would receive his reward and getting the reward is future long term, but when God provides proof he concurrently provides friendship which is manifested with evidence of his holy spirit througout a person's life long term -some people walk away as I posted previously

Proof is something long term, it stays in your mind forever, it cannot be debunked, it will affect your thinking long term, forever. The only basis for Bible faith. A person is convinced for life.

But God does not just come to people until they show faith. Not only in expectation but in action.

I disagree somewhat, take Nicodemus for example, he concluded from the evidence not from faith .Take the preaching work of JC, God's Holy Spirit in action, God just comes to all kinds of people with proof. However, I agree that a person has to be rightly disposed to see the evidence. Proof from God is very special, it also affects a person's emotions and spirituality not only the mind. God's Holy Spirit is very visible. People cannot see because of spiritual blindness. But once they do, they start to see the evidence, Proving yourself is about receiving the reward which involves long term faith but before a person can have faith he needs something to base his faith upon which is not wishful thinking or idolatry. Take "Babylon the great's" followers, the Jews, Xtians, etc, they have faith without proof.

Viviane

Oooh, Christian fight!

In this corner, we have cult A using scriptures out of context and claiming they mean things they don't. In that corner we have cult B denying the scriptures say what they plainly say.

Who will prevail?

Fisherman

viv: conclusions

Fisherman

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead

All Paul is doing is debunking the belief that sprouted up among the Christians back then that there is no resurrection of the dead with the logic that they already knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that was a basis for faith in the resurrection of others too. In fact, the resurrection of Jesus is what they were preaching about.

(These guys back then weren't teaching from some book they read which was written some thousands of years ago. ( The Bible so states that:) This is something that they saw; they saw the resurrected Jesus; they saw Jesus ascend into heaven and Paul saw and communicated with Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus was proven conclusively to those witnesses and that is what these guys back then were witnessing and preaching about all over the place.)

They were testifying about what they saw and heard-not hearsay or something that they read off some book, and that is what being a witness is all about. The subject matter in the related "logic" is about debunking an erroneous conclusion that some had come to back then; Paul's logic is not about invalidating the resurrection, something proven (to them) to be true. Facts cannot be invalidated; neither with logic, not with arguments, not with other facts. Facts stand on their own and everyone back then was convinced for a fact that Jesus rose from the dead and no one could prove to them otherwise. And that proof was a basis for faith in the resurrection -not of Jesus- but of everybody else.

prologos

F: :--faith in the resurrection -not of Jesus- but of everybody else.

If the debacle of the 194 heavenly activity of the spirit-resurrected Jesus, that is currently studied at the K-Hall, and the help that the everybody else resurrection (anointed dead) provided since 1918 , is any indication,-- it all never happened. The mess of wt history is the proof , it never happened. Now, why are we worried about the resurrection?, it was the perfect death, that supposedly is the panacea. -- or?

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

Share this