Originally posted by PudgenikOkay, let's consider that. You say Jesus knew 'you' as an individual would come into existence?
had to re-read that. Yes, is my answer
Now, the odds of you having been born as an individual have be calculated as approximately 1 in 400,000,000,000 (taking into account all your ancestors who would have needed to reproduce at precisely the right moment for you to exist as you are today). We must also of course take into account that within this 1 in 400,000,000,000 probability all the human components have a God given free will and could have chosen to reproduce or read a good book instead. (Perhaps have a game of monopoly).
Where in this random series of freewill probabilities is Jesus knowing you Pudgenik would come into existence?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI 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?
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?
I can see that timing wise millions have yet to see that Jesus Christ is Lord.
We are trying to bring them up to speed.
Originally posted by FMF"The 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 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.
That's not a valid point. You cannot claim that the veracity of the biblical record is false merely because of the lack of secular historical evidence, which by the way goes a long way in proving that the Biblical historical account is accurate and true. Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual integrity knows the Bible has been proven to be true in all its content by virtually every discipline. Yet still there are those such as yourself who will ignore the facts and embrace a fiction such as the one you employ, i.e. that the secular historical record doesn't support the veracity of the Bible.
"Primary source material would certainly help with validating Christian claims, yes, from the historical point of view."
That statement is misleading in that it assumes God's Word requires validation by a man made source. The Word of God is its own "primary source".
Logically, considering the nature of what's being discussed, one would have to be an idiot to think there would be a secular historical record valid enough to support the concept of a resurrected man, and besides, who would believe it?
No. No such evidence is required. All the evidence needed for faith is contained in God's Word. God's Word trumps all other sources and can be trusted to be 100% accurate. Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead just as the gospel record states. No "primary source" material needed to prove it one way or the other.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhat FMF "considers" is of little or no consequence.
He clearly considers the small minority who believe the christian Jesus story to be a subset of mankind generally, and not a separate set.
If the Biblical record is true, then no matter how small a number Christians may be or how marginalized we are made to be, Christians are on the right path. If, as the Bible states, eternal life is a gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, His atoning death on the cross and subsequent resurrection, it matters not how few we are.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat"Since you are claiming that this is a universal truth,.."
Since you are claiming that this is a universal truth, then clearly how you define that term is germane.
I disagree with your definition, and therefore I agree, this discussion can have no benefit for either of us.
You appear to be confusing me with God. That Jesus Christ is Lord isn't my claim. It's God's claim.
With that in mind perhaps we can have a real discussion. Let's be clear about who's authority it is that's making the claim first, then we can move on to a more substantive discussion.
Of course, if you are absolutely certain that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, then why trouble yourself having a discussion with someone who is obviously delusional? 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Since you are claiming that this is a universal truth,.."
You appear to be confusing me with God. That Jesus Christ is Lord isn't my claim. It's God's claim.
With that in mind perhaps we can have a real discussion. Let's be clear about who's authority it is that's making the claim first, then we can move on to a more substantive discussi ...[text shortened]... xist, then why trouble yourself having a discussion with someone who is obviously delusional? 😕[/b]
Originally posted by josephwThe content about the supposed divinity of Jesus and the supernatural aspects of the purported meaning of his life and death "has been proven to be true in all its content by virtually every discipline"? You are mistaken. It's a pity for you that you have chosen to play the "intellectual honesty" card while making such a specious claim.
Anyone with even a modicum of intellectual integrity knows the Bible has been proven to be true in all its content by virtually every discipline.