Posts by Viviane

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

So you did say it, but you also didn't? That makes about as much sense as your interpretations of the Bible or Donald Trump when he talks.

Look, you said it. It's plain to see. Why are you also trying to claim the opposite?

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

I never said that. Read the related chapter. Conclude what you like..

Uh, yeah you did. You said "they knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead".

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

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.

Slow down there, turbo-dog. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where did Paul say in that passage that they knew for a fact Jesus had been raised?

(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:)

Well, books didn't exist back then, so of course they weren't. However, they were preaching from scrolls and teachings from thousands of years ago.

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.

Paul never met Jesus when he was on Earth, even by the time the Gospels were written, most of the followers of Jesus had never seen nor heard the man.

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.

Being convinced of something doesn't make that thing a fact, nor is it proof of anything.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

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?

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

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.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

Viv, every person mentioned in Hebrews 11 had proof from God

Hebrews 11:1, my friend. Why do you deny the words of Paul?

something that they observed and knew with certainty to be real- before they decided to have faith

Nooope. Noah built the ark before he saw the flood. Abraham went, by faith, so somewhere he had no proof of. Sarah had faith before she had proof she would bear a child.

All of your examples, when considered, show your claim to be false.

Even myself, without convincing evidence, I would not be able to have any faith, my mind would not trust something subjective 100 percent. The mind trusts proof.

That is literally the opposite of faith. You are denying what you were commanded to do as a Christian according to Paul.

Take for examples the wilderness trek, pillar of cloud, pillar of fire, the ten plagues, manna from the heavens, water from a rock, the red sea -and with all that proof Israelites still needed faith that God would keep his promise.

And the Israelites were called a faithless people. So what?

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

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.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

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?

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

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.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

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... .

Viviane

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.