Faith In God
A little FIG is all we need...
No, but Peter, an apostle, did listen to rebuke from Paul. That says something.I_are_sceptical said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, but Peter, an apostle, did listen to rebuke from Paul. That says something.I_are_sceptical said:I don't find any such thing in verse 16. It only says that Jesus will show Paul how much he must suffer. There is absolutely no teaching here that Jesus will train Paul to interpret or add to Jesus' words as they are found in the Gospels.
I can't figure out where your belief comes from. Is there even one verse, anyplace, where Jesus says "All who follow Me are commanded to accept whatever this man says just as you accept what I have taught you"?
Okay. What, exactly, does it say? That I should follow Jesus plus at least one other person?butxifxnot said:No, but Peter, an apostle, did listen to rebuke from Paul. That says something.
Paul put it very well. He said to follow him, because he followed Christ. We follow followers. Why? Because they follow Christ as well. If one of Christ's followers is not contradicting Christ, why not follow him??I_are_sceptical said:Okay. What, exactly, does it say? That I should follow Jesus plus at least one other person?
Christians keep telling me that I should follow Jesus Christ as my Lord. But the reality of what they are saying to me, when they go a little deeper into it, seems to be that they want me to follow other people as well. Which is it?
Okay. I agree as far as this goes. But my question at this point is if I read something in Paul's epistles I don't like, that I don't think Jesus would approve of, am I free to reject what Paul says in that particular verse?butxifxnot said:Paul put it very well. He said to follow him, because he followed Christ. We follow followers. Why? Because they follow Christ as well. If one of Christ's followers is not contradicting Christ, why not follow him??
Well, the work has pretty much been done for us in the compilation of the Bible. Follow Jesus first. Paul was a holy man, and he followed Jesus. If you have questions about some of his teachings and how they might be contradictory, by all means, let's talk about it.I_are_sceptical said:Okay. I agree as far as this goes. But my question at this point is if I read something in Paul's epistles I don't like, that I don't think Jesus would approve of, am I free to reject what Paul says in that particular verse?
Or does making a commitment to follow Jesus mean that I am required to accept that every single word Paul wrote is the Infallible and Inerrant Word of God, equal in authority to Jesus' words in the Gospels?
First Corinthians 15:17butxifxnot said:If you have questions about some of his teachings and how they might be contradictory, by all means, let's talk about it.
I_are_sceptical said:You didn't answer my earlier questions, but I have come to expect that from Christians.
To a Christian, that's like saying "If color doesn't exist, are clouds not white?"But my question at this point is if I read something in Paul's epistles I don't like, that I don't think Jesus would approve of, am I free to reject what Paul says in that particular verse?
Jesus' words are more authoritative, of course. But only because He is Jesus. Paul had the Spirit of God in him as well. God won't contradict Himself.Or does making a commitment to follow Jesus mean that I am required to accept that every single word Paul wrote is the Infallible and Inerrant Word of God, equal in authority to Jesus' words in the Gospels?
Because He said that He would rise from the dead. If He didn't rise from the dead, He lied when He said He would be resurrected. Does that make sense?First Corinthians 15:17
"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain"
At what point did Jesus' claims become true? Were they only true AFTER the Resurrection? If they were only true afterwards, does this mean that when Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", He was lying?
If Jesus' claims about Himself were true the moment the words left His mouth, what difference would it make if He had, or had not, been raised from the dead?
Okay. But that doesn't answer my question.butxifxnot said:To a Christian, that's like saying "If color doesn't exist, are clouds not white?"
That's why I didn't answer. I also didn't answer because you put in "I don't think". Either something is or isn't.
I disagree, which is why I asked that particular question.Paul had the Spirit of God in him as well. God won't contradict Himself.
No, it doesn't make sense to me, because it has nothing to do with the question I am asking. No, I don't get what you are trying to say. Did Jesus say, after the Resurrection, "If I had not been raised, all the claims I made about Myself would have been proven to be false"?Because He said that He would rise from the dead. If He didn't rise from the dead, He lied when He said He would be resurrected. Does that make sense?
The Christian faith means nothing if Christ didn't rise from the dead is what Paul means. Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Which part do you disagree with?I_are_sceptical said:Okay. But that doesn't answer my question.
I disagree, which is why I asked that particular question.
No.Did Jesus say, after the Resurrection, "If I had not been raised, all the claims I made about Myself would have been proven to be false"?
No.Are all of Jesus' claims dependant upon the Resurrection to be true?
No.Were Jesus' claims true until He died on the Cross, and then became false until He was raised?
Thirty-six hours and eleven minutes.Alternatively, if those claims remained true for thirty-six hours between just before sunset on Friday and Sunday morning, exactly how long would Jesus have to remain dead until His claims became false?
I disagree with the concept that Paul's epistles are the Word of God, equal with Jesus' teachings. You said "Paul had the Spirit of God in him as well. God won't contradict Himself.", which seems to me that you are implying that both the Jesus' words in the Gospels and what Paul had to say are both God speaking. I have found no evidence that Jesus wants me to believe that.butxifxnot said:Which part do you disagree with?
Yet you have stated that the truth of Jesus' claims is NOT dependant on whether He was, or was not, raised from the dead. If that is so, then Jesus' claims would remain true no matter how long He was physically dead.Jesus' claims about Himself are summed up in "I am God". If He, God, did not raise from the dead, He would have been a liar, because He said He would rise from the dead. God is not a liar.
Now, Paul's comment:
If Jesus had not been raised, He was a liar, and not God, and this Gospel is meaningless.
Now do you get what I am trying to say?
That part is my conclusion (not to mention many other people's.I_are_sceptical said:I disagree with the concept that Paul's epistles are the Word of God, equal with Jesus' teachings. You said "Paul had the Spirit of God in him as well.
That part is undeniable fact.God won't contradict Himself."
That is my belief., which seems to me that you are implying that both the Jesus' words in the Gospels and what Paul had to say are both God speaking.
Jesus, apart from His telling the disciple who healed Paul, never spoke of Paul specifically. However, He did speak of Peter and His disciples. Peter accepted Paul as an apostle, so we have some circumstancial evidence there. But let's talk through this.I have found no evidence that Jesus wants me to believe that.
No, I did not.Yet you have stated that the truth of Jesus' claims is NOT dependant on whether He was, or was not, raised from the dead.
Yes, but you are forgetting one of His pivotal claims: His claim to deity. If Jesus is God, He cannot lie. As soon as He tells one lie, He has proven Himself not God.If that is so, then Jesus' claims would remain true no matter how long He was physically dead.
I did answer your question. That one line about being 36 hrs 11 min was facetious, though true. Again (read this after reading my above comments), if He had stayed dead longer than three days (ie longer than He said He would), He lied, and God does not lie: that would be proof of His not being God.If you believe He would be proven to have lied if He was not bodily raised, how long would He have to remain dead before His claims would become false? I would like an honest answer, not a facetious one, because a facetious answer evades what I think is a very important question. And Christians have an annoying habit of evading every question I ask.
So should my religious beliefs be based on the conclusions you and these other people have reached, or should I base my beliefs on Jesus' words as they are found in the Gospels?butxifxnot said:That part is my conclusion (not to mention many other people's.
Are you telling me that my religious beliefs should be based on circumstantial evidence?Jesus, apart from His telling the disciple who healed Paul, never spoke of Paul specifically. However, He did speak of Peter and His disciples. Peter accepted Paul as an apostle, so we have some circumstancial evidence there.
Yes you did, in post 49.No, I did not.
In the third chapter of Jonah, God says He will overthrow Nineveh in forty days. But He did not actually do that, according to Jonah 3:10.you are forgetting one of His pivotal claims: His claim to deity. If Jesus is God, He cannot lie. As soon as He tells one lie, He has proven Himself not God.
Who says the Gospel hinges on the fact of the Resurrection? I'm presuming you mean Paul. But what authority does Paul have to be saying such a thing?That is why the Gospel hinges on that fact.
So are you saying that Jesus' claim to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life was a lie until after Jesus had been Resurrected? If it was true the moment Jesus said it, wouldn't it remain true under any circumstances?if He had stayed dead longer than three days (ie longer than He said He would), He lied, and God does not lie: that would be proof of His not being God.
I did not say that. I was just reasoning that that part is not strictly Bible, but a Bible conclusion. Open to discussion (as we are doing).I_are_sceptical said:So should my religious beliefs be based on the conclusions you and these other people have reached, or should I base my beliefs on Jesus' words as they are found in the Gospels?
No, but it helps.Are you telling me that my religious beliefs should be based on circumstantial evidence?
The truth of Jesus' claims: There are those about the present, and those about the future. If Jesus lied about any of it, He is a liar. God is not a liar, :. if any of Jesus' claims proved false, He would be proven not God.Yes you did, in post 49.
Yes. Compassion. They repented. He changed His mind, because the reason for their doom dissipated.In the third chapter of Jonah, God says He will overthrow Nineveh in forty days. But He did not actually do that, according to Jonah 3:10.
He said wasn't going with them at that time. He did not lie. He went in secretly, yes, but He didn't mislead them.In John chapter 7:8-10, Jesus told His brothers to go to the Feast of Tabernacles, but He was not going to go. Then He went, secretly. He deliberately deceived them.
Putting aside the question of Paul's authority, it doesn't have to be "said". It just is. Read above. If He didn't rise, He lied. If He lied, He wasn't God. If He wasn't God, He wasn't the savior. No Christianity.Who says the Gospel hinges on the fact of the Resurrection? I'm presuming you mean Paul. But what authority does Paul have to be saying such a thing?
It was true. BUT, if He did not rise (ie He lied when He said He would rise), He was a liar, and could not be the Son of God (ie the Way, the Truth and the Life). His resurrection served as proof (ie a very specific prediction that could only be proof positive by supernatural means).So are you saying that Jesus' claim to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life was a lie until after Jesus had been Resurrected? If it was true the moment Jesus said it, wouldn't it remain true under any circumstances?
Nope. Jesus said very specifically that He would rise three days later, period. If He did not, He would have proven Himself not God.Secondly, by that line of reasoning, it would remain a lie until Jesus fulfilled His prophesy of Returning. Would you agree or disagree?
The truth of Christ hinges on His ressurrection......butxifxnot said:No really, if you still have qualms, bring them up. So far we've only struggled through one issue (the idea that the truth of Christ hinges on His resurrection). I wish other people would join in, because this is an important topic...
I don't see any point in it. You either do not understand what I am asking or you are deliberately evading my questions (like many Christians have done over the years).butxifxnot said:if you still have qualms, bring them up.
I_are_sceptical said:I don't see any point in it. You either do not understand what I am asking or you are deliberately evading my questions (like many Christians have done over the years).
manimal2878 said:Why does paul never quote Jesus or talk about Jesus's miracles.
It seems the only thing paul knows is the resurrection, he doesn't mention anything else at all.
Why is that?
I am starting to think paul is a fraud.
Others have done that, as well. But "the meat of the issue" is not related to the questions I ask, so I never actually get answers.butxifxnot said:move past the yes or no question and getting down to the meat of the issue rather than the question.
To begin, were Jesus' claims true?So what is your precise question?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?