Christianity, rationally defended, introduction

[Brucknerian]

Serious critical responses from members are welcome, pertaining to the works that can be found via the two links below. I'm a serious Christian, by serious meaning one who analyzes God's Word with the view of trying my best to understand it on its fundamental level. Did you know that what philosophers call 'the problem of evil' is answered in the Bible? ... and that there are ways to prove God's existence outside of the Bible, through pure critical reasoning? The links lead to a work that can be downloaded for free from Philosophy Papers Archives. The titles are "Rational Theism, Part One ..." and "Rational Theism, Part Two...." The first part puts forth an a priori proof of God's existence that conforms to the critical demands for such a proof as put forth by the philosopher/metaphysician Immanuel Kant. It includes an Appendix that clarifies Kant in this regard, and the Appendix will help those both familiar and unfamiliar with Kant to comprehend more clearly what Kant had in mind in his "Critique of Pure Reason". "Rational Theism, Part One" can be called a Theory of Everything (TOE) in the true sense. To understand this you'll have to not just read, but comprehend the pure conceptual system of understanding it advances. I believe not everyone will be suited to such a task as it puts a serious strain on one's conceptual abiloities--artists, or creative thinkers are more likely to understand the system of understanding than those who simply breeze through works with no real intent to understand a work on its deepest level. The second work, "Rational Theism, Pat Two..." is a Biblical Exegesis that presents the Bible's answer to the problem of evil, and it is an answer that apologists have failed to understand, having sought for an answer to the problem outside of the scriptures. If you have ever wondered why, if there is a God, there is such evil as we see and hear about in the world, that reaches back to the dawn of civilization, you might be interested in learning the answer that's apparent in the Word. It's very clearly delineated and its surprising at least to me that it has gone completely unnoticed. There are five dozen scriptural passages that are included that when put together, reveals the answer. The two works can also be called philosophical, and probably more this, than just another apologetic, and this should become more and more clear as one goes through the works. Let me know what you think. Are the works a contribution to serious Christian understanding, and debate, are they a staunch defense against atheism; or are they just the same old usual apologetics?

https://philpapers.org/archive/LIIRTP-2.pdf
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIIRTP-3

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #9]
Critical scholars, when doing critical scholarship, do not treat the Gospels as generally reliable. That's what apologists do. Critical scholarship entails the attempt to extract some history from the flawed documents. For example, Ehrman's theory is that Jesus was an apoclyptic preacher (one of many; John the Baptiser was another) who taught that God would soon establish a new kingdom of God on earth, vanquishing the forces of evil that were so rampant . This would be ushered in by the arrival of a "son of man" (not himself). This much is pretty mainstream in critical scholarship. Ehman also believes Jesus was executed by Rome for treason, and his body left to rot for many days - and that the honorable burial story was an invention. He would not call the Gospels propoganda, since that's pejorative; he believes they are the product of sincere believers - who exercised creativity to make their theological points, as did those who passed along the anecdotes that are labelled "oral tradition" - a process Ehrman relates to the "telephone game".

This is what I think is the basic problem with Biblical Authorities and critics. They may see the gospels as garbled report, but they do not seem to consider that it is entirely made up by Greek Christians, at least as far as what Jesus supposedly said.

And yet the clues are there and even a few are known - that Matthew supposedly, the most Jewish - did not even understand OT scripture. is notoriously well known, yet the implications are not considered. So far as i know, I just never see it mentioned.

This is why i generally do not pay attention to the usual authorities as they are way behind what ought to be current research, but apparently isn't.

But never mind Exodus is now being queried in a way it wasn't until I had a discussion some years ago on my Other Forum.

I'm not saying my ideas trickled down, but they eventually caught up. Maybe they will on the Nativities (2nd census argument definitively debunked) and the Trial. They know there was (on evidence) no Passover release custom, and even that the Blasphemy charge was nonsense, that Pilate would have been on guard with a full garrison. But they don't seem to put it all together into a convincing Conspiracy Theory .

I think they should.

[fredonly]

This is what I think is the basic problem with Biblical Authorities and critics. They may see the gospels as garbled report, but they do not seem to consider that it is entirely made up by Greek Christians, at least as far as what Jesus supposedly said.

Consider the reasoning. They infer: Jesus existed and developed a devoted following during his life. They also infer that he was executed by Roman authorities and that some of those devoted followers continued the movement ( in some form) after his death. If you disagree with any of this, no need to read further.

Our earliest information about this post-execution movement is the "credal statement" Paul recites in 1Cor15:3-5. It is estimated to have been taught to Paul within a few years of Jesus' death. In the past, you and I have agreed that the "appearance" of Jesus to one or more people may have been due to cognitive dissonance. Consider the implication: Jesus was held in high regard (to put it mildly). What explains this high regard? His words and deeds. It seems logical that his words and deeds would be included in the practitioners' movement that followed his death. This is the basis for believing there were oral teachings about Jesus' words and deeds after his death, that were repeated (imperfectly, with theological spin, and translated into Greek) over the decades until one or more came to be put into writing.

The notion that the Gospels have no basis in fact makes it harder to explain the origins of movement that evolved into Christianity.

It IS recognized that many of the stories are nothing more than fictions derived from the old Testament (e.g. the "virgin birth" based on a misleading Greek translation from the Hebrew; the "suffering servant" in Isaiah; the birth in Bethlehem...). But why make up a teaching about God being on the verge of establishing his kingdom on earth? Why make up a baptism by John the baptizer? Why say Jesus' family thought he was nuts? It's not far-fetched to think Jesus engaged in exorcisms and faith-healings. Those activities continue today (and they are no more miraculous today than they were then).

[TRANSPONDER]

This is what I think is the basic problem with Biblical Authorities and critics. They may see the gospels as garbled report, but they do not seem to consider that it is entirely made up by Greek Christians, at least as far as what Jesus supposedly said.

Consider the reasoning. They infer: Jesus existed and developed a devoted following during his life. They also infer that he was executed by Roman authorities and that some of those devoted followers continued the movement ( in some form) after his death. If you disagree with any of this, no need to read further.

Our earliest information about this post-execution movement is the "credal statement" Paul recites in 1Cor15:3-5. It is estimated to have been taught to Paul within a few years of Jesus' death. In the past, you and I have agreed that the "appearance" of Jesus to one or more people may have been due to cognitive dissonance. Consider the implication: Jesus was held in high regard (to put it mildly). What explains this high regard? His words and deeds. It seems logical that his words and deeds would be included in the practitioners' movement that followed his death. This is the basis for believing there were oral teachings about Jesus' words and deeds after his death, that were repeated (imperfectly, with theological spin, and translated into Greek) over the decades until one or more came to be put into writing.

The notion that the Gospels have no basis in fact makes it harder to explain the origins of movement that evolved into Christianity.

It IS recognized that many of the stories are nothing more than fictions derived from the old Testament (e.g. the "virgin birth" based on a misleading Greek translation from the Hebrew; the "suffering servant" in Isaiah; the birth in Bethlehem...). But why make up a teaching about God being on the verge of establishing his kingdom on earth? Why make up a baptism by John the baptizer? Why say Jesus' family thought he was nuts? It's not far-fetched to think Jesus engaged in exorcisms and faith-healings. Those activities continue today (and they are no more miraculous today than they were then).

I'm wondering whether to do this by analogy or straight...straight is better as i don't want to misuse analogy.
I accept that Paul heard of the resurrection - claim from the disciples, but it was (from his description) visionary and does not fit the gospels. First clue that whatever the origins of Christianity was, it wasn't what is in the gospels.

Paul took it to the Gentiles and that started Christianity. Paul could tell them whatever he wanted. But the textual evidence of the gospels (e.g the David and Shewbread argument would never convince Jews and the Blasphemy charge makes no sense unless in Christian thought) shows that what the gospels claim Jesus said cannot be be what he said. Not even Paul would report that; it is invented by the Greek Christian writers who adapted the original story, which itself was Greek Christian but not yet in four contradictory versions.

Even without textual clues, there is a valid alternative account or mechanism for the origins of Christianity, but there are textual clues that Paul twisted the beliefs of the Jewish disciples, and his Greek Churches twisted even Paul's teachings onto what is in the gospels, and even that elaborated and evolved the story.
But, as I say, I have seen the clues picked up by one expert or another, but I have never seen the whole thing put together.

It's like the Problem I saw at the outset; the skeptic finds a few contradictions, job done; Bible is wrong. They or them do not think it any further. I think it will come. A new clue may be the Gabriel stone which - if the text can't be invalidated - shows that the belief in 3 day resurrection existed before Jesus. Pharisee belief in resurrection has existed since Daniel.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

There can never be truly nothing in the absolute, if there was ever absolutely nothing there could never be anything. It is a logical inevitability, de either have an infinite first cause or an infinitivly reoccuring cycle of causes.


RELATED POSTS

Is there evidence of an intelligent creator?
viewtopic.php?p=331153#p331153

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[fredonly]

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

There can never be truly nothing in the absolute, if there was ever absolutely nothing there could never be anything. It is a logical inevitability, de either have an infinite first cause or an infinitivly reoccuring cycle of causes.

Agreed. And that's why this approach fails as a rational reason to believe God exists.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

There can never be truly nothing in the absolute, if there was ever absolutely nothing there could never be anything. It is a logical inevitability, de either have an infinite first cause or an infinitivly reoccuring cycle of causes.

Agreed. And that's why this approach fails as a rational reason to believe God exists.

I dont understand your comment. Can you explain?


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[fredonly]

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

There can never be truly nothing in the absolute, if there was ever absolutely nothing there could never be anything. It is a logical inevitability, de either have an infinite first cause or an infinitivly reoccuring cycle of causes.

Agreed. And that's why this approach fails as a rational reason to believe God exists.

I dont understand your comment. Can you explain?

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

You showed that "nothingness" is logically impossible.

That answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's because nothingness is logically impossible. It has no other entailments.

[bluegreenearth]

"Rational Theism, Part One" can be called a Theory of Everything (TOE) in the true sense. To understand this you'll have to not just read, but comprehend the pure conceptual system of understanding it advances. I believe not everyone will be suited to such a task as it puts a serious strain on one's conceptual abiloities--artists, or creative thinkers are more likely to understand the system of understanding than those who simply breeze through works with no real intent to understand a work on its deepest level.

Submitted for your awareness and consideration: The argument for a universal quantum field as the only necessary being.

The Necessary Exclusion of God in Ontology: Part 1

The Necessary Exclusion of God in Ontology: Part 2

[JehovahsWitness]

You showed that "nothingness" is logically impossible.

That answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's because nothingness is logically impossible. It has no other entailments.

Exactly...we call that "something" which MUST by definition exist (and be infinite) ... God.


JW

[fredonly]

You showed that "nothingness" is logically impossible.

That answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's because nothingness is logically impossible. It has no other entailments.

Exactly...we call that "something" which MUST by definition exist (and be infinite) ... God.

That's quite a leap! We had agreed that it is logically necessary for something to exist. Now you're asserting (without evidence or argument) it's infinite.

Tell me if you agree there is some ontological foundation (OF) of material reality. I can make an argument for it, if you like.

Regarding calling it "God" - I guess you could name your pet cat, "God" but it's misleading to call the OF by that name on an apologetics forum.