The Christian's belief that Jesus Christ is Lord is more than universally true.
I would ask anyone: Out of all the thousands of people who have lived on the earth, for whom do you think it is more right that she or he should be totally vindicated ?
I would say that there are a lot of significant lives that have lived for whom it would be right to say at last - "that person was right. Finally, we see that that person was speaking truth."
But honestly, no other person who has ever lived is more worthy of this universal acknowledgment than Jesus. The second most worthy one or the third most worthy one is not even close.
Originally posted by sonshipThe "universal acknowledgment" and who the man Jesus was are two different things. The "universal acknowledgment" does not make the claims that Christians make about Jesus true. The "universal acknowledgment" is just the fuss made by Christians who think the claims they make about Jesus are true.
But honestly, no other person who has ever lived is more worthy of this universal acknowledgment than Jesus. The second most worthy one or the third most worthy one is not even close.
Originally posted by sonshipI personally find the teachings of Jesus to be generally pretty laudable, but I certainly don't believe he was any kind of lord. Do you see how this means that your belief that "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not universally true?
The Christian's belief that Jesus Christ is Lord is more than universally true.
I would ask anyone: Out of all the thousands of people who have lived on the earth, for whom do you think it is more right that she or he should be totally vindicated ?
I would say that there are a lot of significant lives that have lived for whom it would be right to say ...[text shortened]... t than [b]Jesus. The second most worthy one or the third most worthy one is not even close.[/b]
Originally posted by FMF"Indeed, I doubt we will ever know for sure."
I don't "know" it to be so. If it was the Romans who executed him, then it would presumably have been for sedition; if it was the Jews who carried out the death penalty, as they were permitted to by the Romans at around the time Jesus is thought to have lived (and died) (although it was only permitted against fellow Jews and only for religious reasons), then pre ...[text shortened]... ting from the time Jesus lived, so the whole episode is swaddled in conjecture and superstition.
You mean 'you', not "we". Don't include me in your doubt. And it's not a question of "doubt", it's a question of 'belief'.
"There is not a scrap of primary historical source material dating from the time Jesus lived, so the whole episode is swaddled in conjecture and superstition."
So because the events described in the gospel accounts occurred in a small corner of the world and are not included in so-called "primary source material" you question their validity?
There are millions of events that have occurred that you will never find in the chronicles of history. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.
The validity of the gospels is well attested to. That the events described in them are doubted by you does not lessen their Truth. The central tenet of the gospels is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believe it or not, but don't try and dispel their accuracy with your pseudo-historical claptrap.
Originally posted by FMFThe claims Christians make about Jesus are the claims Jesus made about himself, and that's what makes them true. It matters not what anyone else says.
The "universal acknowledgment" and who the man Jesus was are two different things. The "universal acknowledgment" does not make the claims that Christians make about Jesus true. The "universal acknowledgment" is just the fuss made by Christians who think the claims they make about Jesus are true.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThat "Jesus Christ is Lord" is universally true isn't dependent on anyone's believing it or not.
I personally find the teachings of Jesus to be generally pretty laudable, but I certainly don't believe he was any kind of lord. Do you see how this means that your belief that "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not universally true?
The Word of God teaches that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord one day. In this lifetime one can examine the evidence for the validity of the Bible's assertion that Jesus is Lord, and decide for his or her own self whether it's true or not, but the day will come when all will know it for a fact.
Originally posted by josephwThe claims that Christians make about Jesus were, in absolutely every case, without exception, written by Christians in the decades and centuries after Jesus died. That's all we have to go on with regard to what Jesus supposedly claimed about himself.
The claims Christians make about Jesus are the claims Jesus made about himself, and that's what makes them true. It matters not what anyone else says.
Originally posted by josephwPrimary source material would certainly help with validating Christian claims, yes, from the historical point of view.
So because the events described in the gospel accounts occurred in a small corner of the world and are not included in so-called "primary source material" you question their validity?
Originally posted by josephwObviously with "we" I was referring to mankind generally and not the minority who believe the Christian Jesus story.
FMF: "Indeed, I doubt we will ever know for sure."
You mean 'you', not "we". Don't include me in your doubt. And it's not a question of "doubt", it's a question of 'belief'.[/b]
Originally posted by josephwHow do you define 'universal truth'? For me, that would be something which is inarguably true. If "Jesus Christ is Lord" was inarguably true, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I and everyone else would already agree with you.
That "Jesus Christ is Lord" is universally true isn't dependent on anyone's believing it or not.
The Word of God teaches that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord one day. In this lifetime one can examine the evidence for the validity of the Bible's assertion that Jesus is Lord, and decide for his or her own self whether it's true or not, but the day will come when all will know it for a fact.
Originally posted by josephwWhoa hang on there Batman.
The claims Christians make about Jesus are the claims Jesus made about himself, and that's what makes them true. It matters not what anyone else says.
Claims, if made by oneself, are therefore manifestly true? - So a claim that I'm Lord of the pixies is rendered true, if made about myself? No proof or validation required?!
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou can claim to be whatever you want to be. That won't make it true.
Whoa hang on there Batman.
Claims, if made by oneself, are therefore manifestly true? - So a claim that I'm Lord of the pixies is rendered true, if made about myself? No proof or validation required?!
But what God says is true irrespective of anyone else's claims. My claim that Jesus is Lord doesn't make it true. What makes it true is based on who it is that's saying it.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatDoes it matter how I define 'universal truth'?
How do you define 'universal truth'? For me, that would be something which is inarguably true. If "Jesus Christ is Lord" was inarguably true, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because I and everyone else would already agree with you.
We can debate what it means, and we can debate what is a universal truth. We can agree here, and disagree there, but in order for a "truth" to be "universal" is contingent on its own merits and not on whether we agree or not. If there be any universal truth(s) they exist independently of whether or not we believe them.
Therefore, if it is true that Jesus is Lord, and we disagree, one of us is wrong.
But if it's false that Jesus is Lord, then this "discussion" is in vain.
Originally posted by josephwSince you are claiming that this is a universal truth, then clearly how you define that term is germane.
Does it matter how I define 'universal truth'?
We can debate what it means, and we can debate what is a universal truth. We can agree here, and disagree there, but in order for a "truth" to be "universal" is contingent on its own merits and not on whether we agree or not. If there be any universal truth(s) they exist independently of whether or not we bel ...[text shortened]... one of us is wrong.
But if it's false that Jesus is Lord, then this "discussion" is in vain.
I disagree with your definition, and therefore I agree, this discussion can have no benefit for either of us.