Is Paul's faith worthless?

[marco]

Paul told the Corinthians: " 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. "

I don't see the truth in his first statement here, since God can ignore the time-honoured tradition that corpses stay corpses. If one assigns supernatural powers to the deity, he could use them to resuscitate Jesus, exceptionally.

One evaluation of Paul's odd statement is that it reflects Paul's personal view of himself as a man with a changed name - from mere mortal to one favoured by God. His preaching has no value if it does not arise from genuine miracles.

Should Christians regard Paul as infallible in matters of faith?

Does a symbolic interpretation of resurrection as an upsurge in Christianity long after Christ's exit render the faith worthless?

Since Muslims do not accept a post-crucifixion resurrection, is their faith more meaningful if Paul's condition is applied?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Usually we would simply smile at the ancient pronouncements of prophets. Paul might have been surprised at the revival of a pig's brain by Yale scientists, and he might then have wondered if a day would come when long-dead Uncle Robert would run again. Paul was a person of his time, awash with tales of gods and eager to fit his own faith into the Book of Belief.


But to his credit he did more than Christ to spread the flames of Christianity; Christ spoke to the air while Paul wrote what he thought, taking Christ with him and giving him a whole new body, shining with celestial life. Christians then are more Paul's children than Christ's. In a sense if Paul spoke nonsense, then Christianity is nonsensical.

[PinSeeker]

Would that we could all be given the same faith God gave Paul.

Paul told the Corinthians: " 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. "

I don't see the truth in his first statement here, since God can ignore the time-honoured tradition that corpses stay corpses. If one assigns supernatural powers to the deity, he could use them to resuscitate Jesus, exceptionally.

Well, okay, but he's saying that if God didn't resurrect anybody, then that "anybody" includes Christ. Christ was also described as the first fruits (yes, by Paul, but really, by God, since all Scripture is inspired by God), meaning His resurrection is what makes anyone else's resurrection possible, and that of believers sure. But if there is no first Occurrence, there can be no subsequent occurrence(s). There can be no second, third, 392nd, 47,689th, or 14 bazillionth if there was no first. Right?

One evaluation of Paul's odd statement is that it reflects Paul's personal view of himself as a man with a changed name...

If so, then why wouldn't he mention his name change from Saul to Paul? That would seem not a minor detail. Even more basic than that, Paul knew who Jesus was and of the consensus of his disciples and all His followers that He was (or at least was perported to be) the Christ. So he's obviously -- patently so -- talking about someone else other than himself.

...from mere mortal to one favoured by God.

Paul would have been the first to have said he was still a "mere mortal" even after his conversion. He also railed against boasting of any kind other than in Christ and His merit. And he called himself the foremost -- the chief -- the worst of the worst -- of sinners.

His preaching has no value if it does not arise from genuine miracles.

The miracle regarding any man is his conversion to Christ. Such is the case with Paul. And his preaching is a direct result of that conversion.

Should Christians regard Paul as infallible in matters of faith?

No mere man was/is infallible, but the divinely inspired Word of God is, because God is.

Does a symbolic interpretation of resurrection as an upsurge in Christianity long after Christ's exit render the faith worthless?

His conversion and witness was recorded by a third party (Luke) long before his words were written, and even within a few months (probably about three) of the actual event. Pentecost (recorded in Acts 2) was shortly after Christ's ascension (recorded in Acts 1), which was about 40 days after the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul's conversion is recorded in Acts 9, and he begins to preach Christ crucified and resurrected in that same chapter, only very shortly after his conversion. The fact that Paul's actual writings (Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, etc.) do not contradict his actions and in fact corroborate them only further cements what we find in the Bible.

Perhaps you think Luke was lying about Paul's experiences, and Paul was only (years later) perpetuating that lie about himself. If so, it would take a lot effort to convince oneself of that. But men will go to extraordinary lengths to deny God.

Since Muslims do not accept a post-crucifixion resurrection, is their faith more meaningful if Paul's condition is applied?

Well, some Muslims actually have God-given faith... which is why they are no longer Muslims.

[onewithhim]

Paul told the Corinthians: " 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. "

I don't see the truth in his first statement here, since God can ignore the time-honoured tradition that corpses stay corpses. If one assigns supernatural powers to the deity, he could use them to resuscitate Jesus, exceptionally.

One evaluation of Paul's odd statement is that it reflects Paul's personal view of himself as a man with a changed name - from mere mortal to one favoured by God. His preaching has no value if it does not arise from genuine miracles.

Should Christians regard Paul as infallible in matters of faith?

Does a symbolic interpretation of resurrection as an upsurge in Christianity long after Christ's exit render the faith worthless?

Since Muslims do not accept a post-crucifixion resurrection, is their faith more meaningful if Paul's condition is applied?

Paul's statement is not so odd. He is saying that our entire faith rests on the resurrection of Christ, and he believed that Christ was indeed resurrected. He says that if Christ was NOT brought back to life, our faith means nothing. He is therefore underlining what he believes to be the truth---that Christ came back to life. Because Christ did, mankind can know that they will have a resurrection also (if they die).

I believe that what Paul says is inspired by God. If he says something that isn't, he says so.

A symbolic interpretation of resurrection would be meaningless, and Christianity---our Christian faith---would be in vain.

It always amazes me when Muslims contradict what Christians believe, because the Quran itself states that they believe that the Bible was inspired by Allah. They say they believe Christ was a great Prophet, second only to Mohammed. So why on earth would they say that Christ was not resurrected? If they really had respect for the Bible, they would accept the resurrection of Christ. They think Mohammed went to heaven on a horse, of all things, so why not Jesus after coming back from the dead?

Their faith would be meaningful if they would not contradict themselves by saying they believe their Quran and yet do not believe the Bible, which Allah was supposed to have sent down to humans.

The Quran says:

"We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light, in accordance with which the prophets who were obedient (to God) gave instructions to the Jews, as did the rabbis and priests, for they were the custodians and witnesses of God's writ....Later, in the train (of the prophets), we sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which had been (sent down) before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, which corroborated the earlier Torah, a guidance and warning for those who preserve themselves from evil and follow the straight path." (The Feast, 44 and 46)


If Allah gave men the Gospels, wouldn't Muslims regard what the Gospels say as "Allah's writ"? And wouldn't they agree with the Gospels that Jesus rose again?

(But they don't, so something is very off with them.)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

The thread title is "Was Paul's faith worthless (no raising, no praising)" a not so subtle (but surprisjngly poetic) twist on the Pauline argument presented in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 in the bible. While Paul does in fact not deal with the question whether without the resurrection hope God (or Jesus) should still be "praised", it could be argued that was in fact an implied conclusion to his rebuttal of critics of this teaching.

In any case, Paul with his usual masterful use of logic, agues that by that rejecting the teaching that Christ rose from the dead one rejects a fundamental teaching of the Christian faith and this for him (Paul) and ALL Christians because it invalidates a future reward for present sufferings and makes all those that preach of such rewards at best gullible victims of a falsehood or at worse themselves willful liars.

1 CORINTHIANS 15 : 14-15

But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain. 15 Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given witness against God by saying that he raised up the Christ, whom he did not raise up - NWT

My opinion is he is absolutly right in his argumentation. Christians have long taught that present deprivation, persecutions and even death will ultimately prove worth the sacrifice because as scripture says "God will not forget the love you had for His name" and compensate largely for such sacrifice. If this is untrue then those that belied this message have indeed been dupped, whether the duper did so through the misinterpretation of the facts or for nefarious reasons, the dupee is still a victim who at the very least made made pointless sacrifices for non-existent future rewards, and at the worst suffered martyrdom for nothing.

1 CORINTHIANS 15 :

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone. - NWT

SHOULD WE PRAISE A GOD THAT DOESN'T VALUE JUSTICE?

As for the question of "praise", as has been argued effectively by believers past and present, if Jesus promises of raising from the dead was in fact empty rhetoric, his demand that his followers be willing to lay down their own lives in defence of such a message made him (Jesus) a malicious manipulator or a complete madman. In either case praising him would be misplaced or dangerous depending on which he proved to be.

Whether one wants to worship a God who, while having the power, refuses to reward those who are persecuted or die in defence of his name or indeed render justice to the oppressed some of whom suffer terribly in this system of things, depends I suppose of one's own morals or lack thereof. The desire for justice is one of the strongest and most fundamental forces in human nature, a message of comfort that even if a person were to die, God will bring them back to life by means of a resurrection , to finally enjoy life as he (God) originally intended, if untrue is not just an amusing distraction, it is cruel.

LIKE 23: 42-43:

Then he said: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your Kingdom.� And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.� - NWT

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




RELATED POSTS

Is the Apostle Paul's report that upward of 500 could testify to Christ's resurrection historical fact?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 239#960239

Does it make much a difference if much of "the Jesus story" is a myth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 725#961725



Further reading: The resurrection of Jesus: Did it really happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/

Go to other posts related to LIFE, DEATH and ...THE APOSTLE PAUL

[Divine Insight]

Paul told the Corinthians: " 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. "

I think this demonstrates Paul's realization that the whole thing is based on faith and faith alone. Which means that Paul himself was not compellingly convinced of the resurrection of Christ.

Should Christians regard Paul as infallible in matters of faith?

Absolutely not. Paul made terrible arguments for his faith, for example:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

This is actually a terrible argument that most certainly doesn't hold water today. This was no doubt Paul trying to convince himself that his faith is not only justified but that he would have no excuse to not have faith. Keep in mind that preachers tend to build self-encouraging arguments and then stick by them as though they are guaranteed absolutes. Even when those arguments don't truly hold any water.

Since Muslims do not accept a post-crucifixion resurrection, is their faith more meaningful if Paul's condition is applied?

Well, at least they don't need to believe in all the absurdities that come with a resurrected Christ. Let's not forget the absurdities of a God having himself crucified by humans just so he can offer them undeserved amnesty is extremely absurd, and actually goes against the original religion from which Christianity arose.

If Allah gave men the Gospels, wouldn't Muslims regard what the Gospels say as "Allah's writ"? And wouldn't they agree with the Gospels that Jesus rose again?

(But they don't, so something is very off with them.)

There's nothing off here at all. The Muslims do not regard the Gospels as "Allah's writ". In fact, they actually reject the Christian Gospels as being misguided information created by the Christians.

What they do accept is that Jesus was a prophet of Allah. But that doesn't mean that they need to accept the Christian Gospels as "Allah's writ".

So there is no contradiction in their position. At least on this particular issue. Although Islam suffers from all the same contradictions and absurdities as Christianity when it come to the Old Testament.

The real question in these religions is not whether Jesus was resurrected, but rather whether the God described in the Old Testament makes any sense. If Yahweh is absurd, then there's no point in even talking about Jesus as supposedly being the Son of Yahweh.

This is why I don't even care to debate Christians much on the New Testament and Jesus until they can justify the Old Testament, which they have never been able to do.

So both Christianity and Islam have no meaningful foundation to stand upon. Never mind Jesus.

[marco]

Well, okay, but he's saying that if God didn't resurrect anybody, then that "anybody" includes Christ.

Yes, if God didn't raise Jesus then it is true to say God didn't raise Jesus. The proposition seen this way is utterly empty of meaning. If it is being said that there are no resurrections in nature, it may be true to say Jesus did not rise by natural means.

Christ was also described as the first fruits (yes, by Paul, but really, by God, since all Scripture is inspired by God), meaning His resurrection is what makes anyone else's resurrection possible, and that of believers sure. But if there is no first Occurrence, there can be no subsequent occurrence(s). There can be no second, third, 392nd, 47,689th, or 14 bazillionth if there was no first. Right?

Pointless nonsense.

If so, then why wouldn't he mention his name change from Saul to Paul? That would seem not a minor detail. Even more basic than that, Paul knew who Jesus was and of the consensus of his disciples and all His followers that He was (or at least was purported to be) the Christ. So he's obviously -- patently so -- talking about someone else other than himself.

I assume you've completely misunderstood what was being said, since this makes no sense as a reply.

Paul would have been the first to have said he was still a "mere mortal" even after his conversion. He also railed against boasting of any kind other than in Christ and His merit. And he called himself the foremost -- the chief -- the worst of the worst -- of sinners.

I agree he was sanctimonious. His false modesty gets quite sickening. He glorifies himself by the device of prostration. But he feels capable to offering advice here, there and everywhere.

The miracle regarding any man is his conversion to Christ. Such is the case with Paul. And his preaching is a direct result of that conversion.

There is no miracle in someone becoming a Muslim, a Mormon or a Methodist. Paul was conceited enough to suppose he was touched by God. Catholics, through the same "miracle of faith" believe they eat Christ literally. I suppose there are elements of belief that, to rational minds, seem miraculous in that they are preposterous. Tertullian put it honestly when he said "I believe because it's absurd." But people are regularly conned out of their life savings - there is no miracle.

No mere man was/is infallible, but the divinely inspired Word of God is, because God is.

This type of reasoning is used to justify papal infallibility. God guides his servants.

Perhaps you think Luke was lying about Paul's experiences

Paul is remarkably shy about his "experiences". Part of him was maybe honest enough to realise others were deceived, but such was the acclaim, he just couldn't deny it was miraculous. Muhammad too was persuaded by his first wife that God spoke to him, and we can see the results are startling. There's no difference.

[PinSeeker]

Pointless nonsense.

Right back at you, my friend. Your take on all this is utter nonsense. Go well, as you like to say.

[marco]

It always amazes me when Muslims contradict what Christians believe, because the Quran itself states that they believe that the Bible was inspired by Allah.

Parts of the Bible are accepted. As with most religions they change what they don't like.

They think Mohammed went to heaven on a horse, of all things, so why not Jesus after coming back from the dead?

I don't see the difference between two absurdities. In any event, enlightened belief is that the Night Journey was a dream revelation. It's always possible, with a bit of good will, to make sense of the senseless.