21 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSomebody should edit out the re-enactments and just
DISCOVERED: The GREAT STONE Owned By Joseph of Arimathaea from the Garden Tomb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BqARq0pXw
use the "documentary". I wonder what genius decided
on using a Cockney girl with a lisp for the narration?
Hilarious. Sounds like she is reading a fairy tale to little
children.
21 Apr 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59Perhaps you would prefer this narrator better. However they still use re-enactments and it is much longer.
Somebody should edit out the re-enactments and just
use the "documentary". I wonder what genius decided
on using a Cockney girl with a lisp for the narration?
Hilarious. Sounds like she is reading a fairy tale to little
children.
DISCOVERED: The True Tomb of Jesus & The GREAT Stone to The Tomb.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAny proof will still require faith for one to believe the proof. What I consider proof may not be proof for you if you don't have faith to believe it.
If proof existed, faith would not be required. Do you believe that faith is not required? Is not, why do you keep looking for proof?
21 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeproof
If your proof requires faith to accept it then it is, by definition, not proof.
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence:
What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Which definition of proof are you referring to?
21 Apr 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd if one's faith requires proof to accept it then it is, by definition, not faith.
If your proof requires faith to accept it then it is, by definition, not proof.
(I know you knew that, I was just providing equal time for opposing views. 🙂 More for RJH than for you, of course.)
21 Apr 15
Originally posted by Suzianne
And if one's faith requires proof to accept it then it is, by definition, not faith.
(I know you knew that, I was just providing equal time for opposing views. 🙂 More for RJH than for you, of course.)
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
(Acts 1:3 NASB)
Having proofs of something does not mean we do not also need faith to believe.
05 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsTo these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing [b]proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
(Acts 1:3 NASB)
Having proofs of something does not mean we do not also need faith to believe.[/b]Come again?
How can we have "proof" that something exists and yet it still require that we have faith that it exists?