1st corinthians 15 12-17. 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, your faith is futile... .
Faith is about the future
Huh? Are you saying it's not possible to have faith or proof that something in the past happened? Or that something is happening right now? Hebrews 11:1 says it is both for the future and for what we do not see, as in the present.
But without solid proof, faith crumbles.
That's literally the opposite of how the Bible describes faith.
1st corinthians 15 12-17. 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, your faith is futile... .
The Bible records that consistently God always gave proof and never ever expected people to believe without solid evidence and that is why the Bible records that God gave Paul and those Christians back then sufficient proof.
Curious, then, that Paul then said to have faith and to not need proof. Was he going against god when he did that?
1st corinthians 15 12-17. 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, your faith is futile... .
Your argument that there certainly was no resurrection rests on the assumption there is no God.
Whereas belief in the resurrection rests on the view that God exists and resurrection is a plausible act for such a being.
Interesting how you attempt to use words to frame these. One is an assumption, the other is a view. Wouldn't be more proper an accurate to say there no no evidence for god nor a resurrection and all evidence in existence points to neither of those things being true, whereas the assumption that both of those things are true has absolutely no backing in evidence whatsoever?
Wouldn't also be exactly as fair to so that the argument that Krampus doesn't exist is also an assumption, just as is it that Jesus didn't poop or have a wife? Or that you aren't made of invisible unicorn teapots orbiting Mars that we simply have no way to detect?
The problem is that once you give an equal weight to "can't prove it isn't true" claims, every claim is just a viable as the next because you've unshackled anything you say from reality.
1st corinthians 15 12-17. 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, your faith is futile... .
I find that most atheist views, fly out the window if they encounter a spirit being, force, ghost whatever they want to call it and cant explain it scientifically
Where did you find this? How many people did you sample? How do you know their views before and after the event? How do you know it was a spirit or ghost? What are those things made of?
Some will change others will not, no matter what, because they dont want to believe.
I am sure that is true. However, would you expect anyone to change their views without evidence?
Science is like religion, it is dogmatically argued, you have believers and nonbelievers always.
Science is the opposite of dogma.
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
They believe the Old Testament foretold Jesus' betrayal. It would have to not be explicit because the various passages of scripture aren't explicit. The details given are: Jesus' betrayer would be someone close to him; and Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. That's enough for Christians.
It's not explicit but gives details? Interesting.
After all, the Bible doesn't state beyond doubt that in 33CE Jesus would be betrayed by Judas Iscariot.
It beyond a doubt absolutely does not state anything even remotely like that.
Christians have faith that this is accurate and correct.
Well, faith is about pretending to know things.
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
So you were never a JW, that answers my question.
No one answered your question, stop making things up.
Belittles debating, seriously? How terrible! How about your belittling of people who come on this forum because their family has been trapped in a fucking cult for decades.
Tell me, do you always make up ridiculous things or is this a special occasion? And yes, belittles debating. Based on your comments, you seriously could have learned a lot from a debate team.
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
Yes, I think 'prophecy' means a foretelling of an event. True believers vary re details. Millions of Christians aren't too fussed on the details, it seems.
Then they aren't foretelling "an" event.
neither. If you'd read my previous posts on this thread, you'd realise that I'm not a believer in Bible prophecy. I said I was playing devil's advocate.
My question has no bearing on whether you are a believer or not. You said there was a prophecy foretelling something, I am trying to determine how you concluded it's a prophecy. If you are saying that people claim it's a prophecy, we then need to shift the question to "how are they defining prophecy".
yes, I said it sounds a bit silly. Strange that you chose not to answer that harmless question ...
Why is it strange that I choose not to answer silly questions?
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
who gets to make up these rules?!
You, me, Dr Bollocks on the Bakerloo Line?
To hundreds of millions of Christians world-wide, it was prophesied that Jesus would be betrayed by one of the twelve. It's nonsense but that's what I believed when I was a true-believer JW.
Rules? It's a a rule, it's just a question of "what is a prophecy". Is a specific foretelling of an event? If so, how do we know any event is the right one? Must the prophecy be specific enough to tell? On the other hand, are they supposed to be vague enough that a number of events can match and after the fact we have to pick and choose which events fit?
it's not how you or I define prophecy. It's how hundreds of millions of Christians define/accept prophecy.
Wait now, millions of Christians say it's very specific, other claim it's vague and only to be interpreted after the fact. Which is yours? I ask because that's what this is all about. If that is a prophecy, it's not specific enough to say "this was the event foretold". Jesus knowing Judas was the betrayer wasn't even something that required preternatural knowledge.
It sounds silly but I have to ask: were you a JW, Viviane?
It does sound silly that you feel you have to ask.
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
it's slightly vague but bear with me ...
well, no, if it's vague, it's not really a prophecy, now is it? Unless you are telling me that prophecy is vague, so vague as to mean any number of things, in which case it's just people saying vague stuff.
Now to you it's tenuous/nonsense, to me it's tenuous/nonsense, but there are plenty of Christians who sincerely believe this crap.
John Hagee is a modern prophet, using vague language in the Bible to declare God saw this coming, whatever the "this" is.
Point is, lots of people believe lots of things. A "prophecy" that can apply to a hundred things and only after the fact sort of can mean what you want it to is useless. Is that how we are defining prophecy? If so, yes, it's a prophecy.
If, however, we are defining it as "a foretelling of future events", it's kind of important to have, you know, actually foretold the events.
They believe that one of the twelve would betray their master, not because nasty God forced him to but because this particular apostle chose to do so - exercising free will, tempted by the money.
Well, that's another conversation, but it's impossible to have both free will and an omniscient god that knows the future.
supposedly the disciples witnessed jesus' super-power awesomeness first-hand.. so they were all 100% on-board to-the-death martyrs ... right?.
erm .... judas betrayed him.
thomas didn't believe he'd come back.
'He who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me shall betray me' - Matt 26:23
In what way is that a prophecy?
Viviane were you ever a member of the JW religion or just the college debating society?
Interesting question. It makes a huge assumption, creates a false dichotomy and attempts to belittle the experience that can be gained from learning proper debating.
See, that can go both way, such as "were you ever a JW or did you just wash windows for fun?"
I can come up with many more examples. Suffice to say, I won't.
