MeetJesusToday

See why Jesus is worth getting to know.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

The inaugural series is available for FREE right now! See why Jesus is worth getting to know.

https://t.co/Pgdc61wabD

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@StClauseisme My Dad wrote a catchy silly song about this.

“You’re like a fish without a bicycle. A mouse without a cat. A pig without a bar of soap. A frog without a hat. When you're missing anything that Jesus takes away, you will find that life is better, better off that way."

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@FreedPodcast … careful thought into the question, and they were making reference to other materials. Would you be interested in me looking to find that to share with you?

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@FreedPodcast I listened to a YEC podcast recently by creationist scientists who wanted to make sure they took this type of objection and gave it the appropriate weight. While what l listened to was necessarily light on details, it was also clear they were putting real and …

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@RandalRauser I tend to think that God “can” do evil in the sense you’re using it here. At minimum God can’t do evil in the sense that He is completely trustworthy that He will not.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@paulogia0 What of sufficiently advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic?

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@HauntedBeaker @AStrasser116 There are more and less foundational teachings, though. Resurrection would necessarily be among those.

I don’t think there are clear lines that we can draw around orthodoxy for calling somebody a Christian, but some that can make certain groups clearly less orthodox.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@HauntedBeaker @AStrasser116 I think we should say that there are JWs and Mormons that are real Christians, and proclaimed Christians that are not. The criteria is whether you’re fully committed to denying yourself and following Jesus, not the particular teachings.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@Svigel I'm in this tweet and I don't like it.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@FreedPodcast I’d reject any form of inerrancy that would require me to accept that contradiction.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@goingawoll @HonestlyAtheist Same

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@Svigel Then, if I am to take a common of person, rather than theological definition, it sounds like I could now accurately say that Jesus, separate from the Father and Holy Spirit, is not a complete person, does that seem like I understand correctly?

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@adam_redwine @codett12 @JMcLatchie_ @ReliefBelief @paulogia0 That sounds to me like you’re saying if we find details that are easy for someone near the events to get right, but difficult for someone else to get right because they are separated by time or distance, then that can provide some evidence that they were close to the details?

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@Svigel Sure, I feel like my original question was a bit dodged, though. What would stop the same logic here presented to say “if you’re afraid to omit the honor your mother and father command, you compromise righteousness by faith”.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@Svigel Thanks. It rather sounds like you might be saying that the sabbath command is the one to omit because it seems arbitrary to apply today, do you think that might be accurate?

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@adam_redwine @codett12 @JMcLatchie_ @ReliefBelief @paulogia0 Thanks. For the question you asked, the specific details are irrelevant, because I wanted to know whether you think that there even is such a possible distinction between easy and hard to get right details.

By right I mean accurate, corresponding to historical reality.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@adam_redwine @codett12 @JMcLatchie_ @ReliefBelief @paulogia0 *distinction

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@adam_redwine @codett12 @JMcLatchie_ @ReliefBelief @paulogia0 He is drawing a diction between details that are correct but easy to get right, and details that are correct but difficult to get right. The prime minister is a detail that is easy to get right, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

[MeetJesusToday @MeetJesusToday]

@adam_redwine @codett12 @JMcLatchie_ @ReliefBelief @paulogia0 So do you think that (a) all details are inherently easy to get right, (b) that even if the details are hard to get right it doesn’t provide evidence of accuracy, or (c) that he hasn’t made a good enough case that the details are hard to get right?