A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  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.
  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

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

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

  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".

  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  You said "they knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead". -viv
  

  Right. That, I posted.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Uh, yeah you did -viv

  No I didn't
  
• 

  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?
• 

  Fisherman

  So you did say it, but you also didn't?

  Neither did I say it nor did I also didn't say it. I simply did not say it. Let me make it simple for you: You said that I said that Being convinced of something makes that thing a fact.... In fact this is what you said about what I posted: "Being convinced of something doesn't make that thing a fact, nor is it proof of anything" -and I already told you that I did not say that - but you insist that I did.

  That makes about as much sense as your interpretations of the Bible or Donald Trump when he talks.

  You can conclude what you like, "I don't care." -to quote Marvin Shilmer

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

  Again, you insist and make claims about what I posted after clearly telling you that that's not what I said. Let me make it easy for you (if you like.) Your conclusions about what I posted is not what I posted -but you can believe them if you like.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Whatever you think of Christianity, Tom Wright is a very engaging writer who manages to tell the story of Jesus like no one else. I have read some shorter books by him but have not got round to reading his book on the resurrection. This brief video shows that he argues the enlightenment is a parody of the real turning point in human history which was the resurrection of Jesus.

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Resurrection-Son-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0281055505/

  
  https://youtu.be/e2rAGimw2hY

  More on resurrection and paradise earth.

  https://youtu.be/AA0NLb0pXGI

  https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4
  
• 

  nicolaou

  Slim, in your post three days ago you keep banging on about god as if it's something important I'm ignoring. You said;

  the feasibility of a resurrection hangs on the existence or otherwise of God

  Translated this is nothing more than; the feasibility of a resurrection hangs on the existence or otherwise of a resurrection enabling factor. You might as well argue that the feasibility of the moon being consumed by a space dragon hangs on the existence or otherwise of space dragons.

  And don't give me that bunk about centuries of Judeo Christian theology lending credence to impossible stories. By that standard ghosts, vampires and werewolves could all be real.

  The god argument is thoroughly deceitful, it gets dressed up as reasonable and gets a pass into debate because of its legacy. People who use it rely on a habit of respect from their opponents. Well not from me, god can fuck off into the obscurity to which we've rightly assigned goblins, fairies and bigfoot.

  Seriously, this is resurrection we're talking about. There are grieving parents who'd give everything they own to see their child again and religious fraudsters will happily trade that promise for them.

  Why be a part of that emotional pillaging? Why support the lies and false promises by enabling a hope that is futile and barren?

  The grieving need our love and comfort. They need time to heal and come to terms with the reality of loss. They don't need the scabs of grief constantly being ripped off with the false hope of a resurrection.

  Nic'
• 

  Viviane

  Again, you insist and make claims about what I posted after clearly telling you that that's not what I said.

  That's a religious person for you, posting something and then denying the plain words mean what they mean or that they ever even posted it. It's the only way for your religious texts to make sense, so I shouldn't be surprised when that extends into your own writings.