Soteriological drama

[Metacrock]

Debate Question:Is there a single eligant answer to the problmes such as why God allows pain, why god uses humans, why God seems to remain hidden, why God is not more explicit about his existence and plans?


Yes, my soteriological drama theory answers all of these in one theory.



The Free Will Defense is offered by Christian apologists as an answer to any sort of atheist argument such as the problem of pain or the problem of evil. The argument runs something like: God values free will because "he" ("she"?) doesn't want robots. The problelm with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else. This leaves the atheist in a position of arguing any number of pains and evil deeds and then charing that God had to know these things would happen, thus God must be cruel for creating anyting at all knowing the total absolute pain (which usually includes hell in most atheist arguments) would result from creation.


The apologetists answers usually fail to satisfy the atheist, because in their minds noting can outweight the actual inflicting of pain. Something atheists evoke omnipotence and play it off against the value of free will, making the assumption that an "all powerful God" could do anything, thus God should be abel to cancel any sort of moral debt, make sin beyound our natures, create a pain free universe, and surely if God were all loving, God would have done so.


The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of mmoral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutley essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God's omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!


Before moving to the argument I want to make it clear that I deal with two seperate issues: the problem of pain (not a moral issue--tarnados and disesases and the like) becasue it doesn't invovle human choice. Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it invovles no choices. Thus I will not deal with that here. I am only concerned in this argument with the the problem of evil that is, the problem of moral choice. The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.


Basic assumptions


There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.


The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.

(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complainance that would be the result of intimindation.

That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truely beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.

(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultaimte meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internatlized.

The argument would look like this:


(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowence of free chioces requires the risk that the chooser will make evil chioces

(4)The possiblity of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpsoe of creation would be thwarted.



This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entials. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclinded to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it.
Argument on Soteriological Drama:


(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tention exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and puroses for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probalby all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from teh heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internatilized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; intetrsubective, internal, not amienable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.

In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we resond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also exaplins why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.

Objection:


One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permiate human history. It may seem at frist glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am acvocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that acures from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internatlizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a caprecious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of chossing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dynig babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babbies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.

In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the detemrinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be detemrined by means of outcome, what is the fianl tally sheet in terms of pleausre over pain to the greatest agrigate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bancrupcy of conseuqnetialist ethics. If one uses a deontolgoical standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates becaue it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleolgoical premises.

My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleolgoical ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the indiviudal to do immoral things in the name of "the greatest good for the greatest number." I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can't help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultaimte adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that utlaitme duty that love demands of any action. Robots don't love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oreitned ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.

The choice of free will at the expense of coutnless lives and ultold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from eihter deontolgoical or teleogical persective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultiamtely leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrafice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoiting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrfices for the good fo the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.

Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes avaible the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultiamtely saving the babbies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It's internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been tought to choose to lay down one's own life for the other.


Objection 2: questions

(from "UCOA" On CARM boards (atheism)



Quote:

In addition, there is no explanation of why god randomly decided to make a "moral universe".




Why do you describe the decision as random? Of course all of this is second guessing God, so the real answer is "I don't know, duh" But far be it form me to give-up without an opinion. My opinion as to why God would create moral universe:

to understand this you must understand my view of God, and that will take some doing. I'll try to just put it in a nut shell. In my view love is the background of the moral universe. The essence of "the good" or of what is moral is that which conforms to "lug." But love in the apogee sense, the will to the good of the other. I do not believe that that this is just derived arbitrarily, but is the outpouring of the wellspring of God's character. God is love, thus love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe.

Now I also describe God as "being itself." Meaning God is the foundation of all that is. I see a connection between love and being. Both are positive and giving and turning on in the face of nothingness, which is negativity. To say that another way, if we think of nothingness as a big drain pipe, it is threatening to **** all that exits into it. Being is the power to resist nothingness, being the stopper in the great cosmic drain pipe of non existence.

The act of bestowing being upon the beings is the nature of God because God is being. Those the two things God does because that's what he is, he "BES" (um, exists) and he gives out being bestowing it upon other beings. This is connected to love which also gives out and bestows. So being and love are connected, thus the moral universe is an outgrowth of the nature of God as giving and bestowing and being and loving.


Quote:
Thus the question isnt really answered. Why does god allow/create evil? To create a "moral universe". Why? The only answer that is given is, because he wants to. Putting it together, Why does god allow/create evil? Because he wants to?


In a nut shell, God allows evil as an inherent risk in allowing moral agency. (the reason for which is given above).

There is a big difference in doing something and allowing it to be done. God does not create evil, he allows the risk of evil to be run by the beings, because that risk is required to have free moral agency. The answer is not "because he wants to" the answer is because he wants free moral agency so that free moral agents will internatize the values of love. To have free moral agency he must allow them to:

(1)run the risk of evil choices

(2) live in a real world where hurt is part of the dice throw.

[bernee51]

Any explanation?

you guys really need educaton. take some art history courses. Yes the fourth cnetury Jesus was dipicted in Gerco-Roman style. that is amatter of art not theoloyg. what happened in the foruth century? the emprie went christians so why woudln't they draw Jesus in their own style?


oy vey

You really aren't paying attention are you?

The comparison is between statues from over the centuries - the pre-chrisitna depictions of myhtical happenings oh so similar to that of Jesus..not that the statue of Jesus is in a particular style.

[bernee51]

I get it. you dont' similarity becasue you dont' care what's true. you are going to assume mythology without evdience because you want it to be that way.

Are you claiming that there is no similarity at all between the Jesus story and other myths?

BTW I have read Campbell

.

bully for you. he hated Christiantiy too

I only mention Campbell because you intimated that you had read "The Hero...". Perhaps you looked at the cover...

Why is it that anyone that does not hold with your myth "hates christianity"?

BTW In all I have read of Campbell, not once did I discern a hatred of christianity.

Are you bearing false witness (again)

[Cogitoergosum]

for your argument to mean anything you have to show a specific case and show that the new discoveries would have made a difference in understanding it. it is not enough to just assert "well this must be the case because I have faith in science.

I don't have to do anything, it is ur physicians claiming miracles that need to produce proof of their claims. So far they haven't.

[Cogitoergosum]

NO, the important thing is that the statement I made which they are trying to disprove said not that "christaintiy was the first" but that "slavation was a farily new concept in religion at the time of Chrsit

That is an understatment since the egyptians had it 1500 years before. In the history of civilization that it is not fairly new.

(1) it is taken as historical fact by all histoirans. look in the dicitonary and encyclopidia. those few who mention Jesus mythers point out that they are frenge lunctics not taken seriously.

LOL. dictionaries are being politically correct, probably written by believers and definetly hoping to sell it to believers. LOL that's ur evidence.

(2) the Gospels are testimony to the real existence of Jesus

(3) Paul ays he was a felsh and blood man with an earthly life and he knew several people who knew him

(4) Clement of Rome Knew Peter,who knew Jesus

(5) Polycarp knew the Apostle John, who knew Jesus and informed plycarp about him a lot

(6) Papias knew several people who knew they Jesus. they saw him and they heard him they touched him they told Papias about him

(7) Josephus knew he was a real guy and says he was--twice!


(8) Celsus quotes frist century Talmudists who attest to Jesus historical nature

(7) several times the talmud alludes to Jesus genology, meaning he was a real guy. it also alludes to his mother. the same information Celsus uses.

(8) in the 1600's the Talmud was self censotored to take references to Jesus out. they had to be in to be taken out.

(9) of the dozen or so first and second century historians who mention Jesus everysingle one assumes he was real.

(10) not one single person anywhere in history before the 19th century ever said Jesus wasn't a real flesh and blood person in history.

(11) one version of the Jesus story

(12) most of the major characters of the Gospels are proven to be real, teh places, the events but why not the guy at the center of all the nubub?

(13) myths dont' need tombs. we have the tomb.

All these are considered arguments if u believe the bible to be true. Since i don't believe the bible at all it is like u r quoting the bible to confirm the bible, lol. Or like quoting a Guru and considering him as evidence for the truth of his religion.

Where is his tomb?,

under the church of the Holy seplechur. corbo and Biddle have proven it.

how many christians agree on that?

where is his house?,

the family farm in Nazerath excavated three times in the 20th century and it sits under the chruch there.

there was no town of nazareth in roman maps of the era, or do u mean the actual town of nazareth? and how do u know this was his family farm? i thought joseph was a carpenter? did i find his sandals there? how do we know it was jesus's farm?

where is his cross?

Helena took it back to Turkey

where in turkey is it? is it on display?

Even the location of golgola is not well known.

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong you could not be more wrong. we know exactly where it was, and the region is still called that today, and it was still called that in Constantine's time. this proven by archeology:

how many archeologist agree with him?

U r not fooling anyone when saying the myths are not comparable, they are, u choose not to see it becasue it will shatter ur belief. That's what is called Cognitive dissonance.

they don't come close. not one singel figure was crucified or rose from the dead.

How funny, none of the other gods have to be crucified, the gospel writers are not as dumb as to copy EXACTLY another god's story. Besides was crucifixion common in the times of phonecians? probably not.
The Phoenix in phoenician mythology dies and rises again from his ashes. Please don't go tell me but the phoenix was not crucified.

[Metacrock]

becasue Jesus actaully did it. there was no Dylnisus there was no Osris they did not live. Jesus did.

Prove it. I see zero evidence it actually happened.

IF you know anything about those religions you should know this is common knowledge. Jesus did exist, its' in every encyclopidia and dictinoary. look him up, it never says "legondary figure thought to eixst." his existence is an historical fact like that of the Alamo.

but Diyonysus was the son of the Zeus. he is not known to have lived he is not nkown to have been a person. same goes for all of those figures, none of them are based upon real historical people.

I said Herckules is thought to be fusion fo two people. I got that from the twelive olypnians book. I guess that documentation for that ponit.He's the only of all of those who is even based upon a real person. we know nothing about those two people.

Oh.. about your claim that religions develop over 1000's of years.

Explain scientology ... explain Mormonism, Explain the ralians..

those are offshoots of existing religions. Christitnaity didn't take thousands of years, because it was an offshoot of Judaism.

And how do these 'dictionary's' and 'encyclopedias' know "Jesus" existed?
Because of the bible.

the bible is evidence, the people who knew him talked about him. that's why Paul said he wa a flesh and blood man with an ealrthly life. Paul met his borther. myths dont' have flesh and blood brothers. the people talked about him, taht's why we have the witness info we have from

Jospehus
Polycapr
Papias
Clmeent of Rme
the Paul connection
peter
John (1st John, that which we knew from the begining)

HOw do we know that the bible is correct? Because the encylopedia says so.

why should we think they were wrong about his existence? how could they get anyone to believe in a guy they had never heard of when stories said eveyrone heard of him and they didnt'? do you understand? can you see that?

the stories say he was crucified and there big corwds and lot of commosion people saw him all over town risen from the dead, but how come no one has ever heard of him before? I dont' know anyone who ever saw him but he suppossedly dragged a cros through the streets? that woudl stupid. Jesus mythers assume acinent people are stupid.

another erason encyclpieas say he existed is becaue histoirans say so. historians say so becasue a doezn histoirns from that era including the two best, tacitus and Jopsheus also say so.

And, even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean he was the son of god, got raised from the dead, and performed miracles.

Ok now it comes out. that's your true motive. that's you really fear.

So, what secular evidence from before.. oh.. I'll extend it, 90 c.e. do you have that Jesus existed.

why does it have to be secular? so you can paly that same game of make the best evidence go away. take Paul out cause he's bible so that goes woooshe! he didn't exist. and now there'sno evidnece. spend the rest of your life in a lie sayin "there's no evidence" because you pretend fine evidence is no good.

in real life no scholar things Paul is bad evidence. all scholars take Paul as fine evidence for early christiantiy. so there is nothing wrong wth using Paul.

the Talmud also contians evidence form first century which Celsus barrowed.

Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

Egerton 2
Gospel of the savior
Thomas
Q
Pre Mark redaction
several of other 34 lost Gospels.






btw there is no hell, how does that change your outlook? isn't that what it's really all about?

[Goat]

becasue Jesus actaully did it. there was no Dylnisus there was no Osris they did not live. Jesus did.

Prove it. I see zero evidence it actually happened.

IF you know anything about those religions you should know this is common knowledge. Jesus did exist, its' in every encyclopidia and dictinoary. look him up, it never says "legondary figure thought to eixst." his existence is an historical fact like that of the Alamo.

but Diyonysus was the son of the Zeus. he is not known to have lived he is not nkown to have been a person. same goes for all of those figures, none of them are based upon real historical people.

I said Herckules is thought to be fusion fo two people. I got that from the twelive olypnians book. I guess that documentation for that ponit.He's the only of all of those who is even based upon a real person. we know nothing about those two people.

Oh.. about your claim that religions develop over 1000's of years.

Explain scientology ... explain Mormonism, Explain the ralians..

those are offshoots of existing religions. Christitnaity didn't take thousands of years, because it was an offshoot of Judaism.

And how do these 'dictionary's' and 'encyclopedias' know "Jesus" existed?
Because of the bible.

the bible is evidence, the people who knew him talked about him. that's why Paul said he wa a flesh and blood man with an ealrthly life. Paul met his borther. myths dont' have flesh and blood brothers. the people talked about him, taht's why we have the witness info we have from

Jospehus
Polycapr
Papias
Clmeent of Rme
the Paul connection
peter
John (1st John, that which we knew from the begining)

HOw do we know that the bible is correct? Because the encylopedia says so.

why should we think they were wrong about his existence? how could they get anyone to believe in a guy they had never heard of when stories said eveyrone heard of him and they didnt'? do you understand? can you see that?

the stories say he was crucified and there big corwds and lot of commosion people saw him all over town risen from the dead, but how come no one has ever heard of him before? I dont' know anyone who ever saw him but he suppossedly dragged a cros through the streets? that woudl stupid. Jesus mythers assume acinent people are stupid.

another erason encyclpieas say he existed is becaue histoirans say so. historians say so becasue a doezn histoirns from that era including the two best, tacitus and Jopsheus also say so.

And, even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean he was the son of god, got raised from the dead, and performed miracles.

Ok now it comes out. that's your true motive. that's you really fear.

So, what secular evidence from before.. oh.. I'll extend it, 90 c.e. do you have that Jesus existed.

why does it have to be secular? so you can paly that same game of make the best evidence go away. take Paul out cause he's bible so that goes woooshe! he didn't exist. and now there'sno evidnece. spend the rest of your life in a lie sayin "there's no evidence" because you pretend fine evidence is no good.

in real life no scholar things Paul is bad evidence. all scholars take Paul as fine evidence for early christiantiy. so there is nothing wrong wth using Paul.

the Talmud also contians evidence form first century which Celsus barrowed.

Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

Egerton 2
Gospel of the savior
Thomas
Q
Pre Mark redaction
several of other 34 lost Gospels.






btw there is no hell, how does that change your outlook? isn't that what it's really all about?

Nope, the fact that there is no hell does not change my outlook at all. You see, you are using the bible to prove the bible. You are the master of circular arguments.
Yes, the people who wrote theological midrashes thought that they were talking about the truth, but none of them saw anything.

The Talmud was 4th century or later.. no primary evidence there.

We do not have the words of Thallus, just some illusions about what he said from second century apologists, no evidence there, just statements of beliefs of apologists.

The texts from Josephus are either only partly forged or totally forged. You can not prove that antiquities 18 was not totally forged by any quotes from it that date before the 4th century. No evidence there. He also was writing after 93 c.e. so
the Christians could have been his source (even if he wrote something).. No primary knowledge there.

We only know of Phlegon from what Africanus claimed.. Phlegon was writing in the 140's, and there are clear signs of there being an interlinear note in the sentences that Africanus uses.


An analysis of your sources show that they are third or 4th hand at the very best, often with modifications. and none of them within 50 years of the alledged events.

[Cogitoergosum]

why should we think they were wrong about his existence? how could they get anyone to believe in a guy they had never heard of when stories said eveyrone heard of him and they didnt'? do you understand? can you see that?
the stories say he was crucified and there big corwds and lot of commosion people saw him all over town risen from the dead, but how come no one has ever heard of him before? I dont' know anyone who ever saw him but he suppossedly dragged a cros through the streets? that woudl stupid. Jesus mythers assume acinent people are stupid.

1st the gospel was written in at least 70 CE, so at least 40 years after the event it relates. And it was written in greek. My question is how many of the people in jerusalem were still alive at that time? how many knew how to read? second how many knew greek? Third assuming everybody could do it, how would they know such a document was written to discredit it. Newspaper? internet?
Or did they learn about in school?

[Cathar1950]

Jesus mythers assume acinent people are stupid.

You seem to think everyone is stupid.

Despite your graphic descriptions we don't know any of that? No we don't if they were right or wrong concerning his existence and the details of his life. It is not like they had reporters. They told stories but it was not limited to the disciples or even the disciples of disciples. Oral traditions are not exact, as you would like to assume. They change as they are told according to the storyteller. They were stories written long after anything happened to people that were not present. The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem either fled or died. There is even good reason to think Mark, the outline for the tales, used Homer's work. Granted there were writings (not all were oral transmission) such as the passions that largely used the Hebrew writings as models and content placed in an ahistorical setting much like you see in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were probably teachings and letters all lost today before any gospels began. Many were prophesizing even in the churches early on and their teaching for the community could hardly be distinguished from reported teachings of Jesus as time went on and the practice was more controlled by the proto-orthodox groups. We have Mark to start with that has a long period of development long after any eyewitnesses were left. There are theories that Marcion created the gospel of John or like others altered it. Even Paul is a poor resource as he even tells us of differences in his day as well as direct information that he was receiving from Christ’s that were taken as his word. How much of this got in the gospels and from what sources or how much has been modified from whatever the original sources is anyone’s guess. But it is open and more is evolved then just a simple “it is true, factual and historical. Even your early sources are largely second-hand, third hand or later from leaders that would do anything for the cause of Christ. Even they don’t agree. When they speak of knowing something how do we even know if they knew who it was in their visions?

[Metacrock]

becasue Jesus actaully did it. there was no Dylnisus there was no Osris they did not live. Jesus did.

Prove it. I see zero evidence it actually happened.

IF you know anything about those religions you should know this is common knowledge. Jesus did exist, its' in every encyclopidia and dictinoary. look him up, it never says "legondary figure thought to eixst." his existence is an historical fact like that of the Alamo.

but Diyonysus was the son of the Zeus. he is not known to have lived he is not nkown to have been a person. same goes for all of those figures, none of them are based upon real historical people.

I said Herckules is thought to be fusion fo two people. I got that from the twelive olypnians book. I guess that documentation for that ponit.He's the only of all of those who is even based upon a real person. we know nothing about those two people.

Oh.. about your claim that religions develop over 1000's of years.

Explain scientology ... explain Mormonism, Explain the ralians..

those are offshoots of existing religions. Christitnaity didn't take thousands of years, because it was an offshoot of Judaism.

And how do these 'dictionary's' and 'encyclopedias' know "Jesus" existed?
Because of the bible.

the bible is evidence, the people who knew him talked about him. that's why Paul said he wa a flesh and blood man with an ealrthly life. Paul met his borther. myths dont' have flesh and blood brothers. the people talked about him, taht's why we have the witness info we have from

Jospehus
Polycapr
Papias
Clmeent of Rme
the Paul connection
peter
John (1st John, that which we knew from the begining)

HOw do we know that the bible is correct? Because the encylopedia says so.

why should we think they were wrong about his existence? how could they get anyone to believe in a guy they had never heard of when stories said eveyrone heard of him and they didnt'? do you understand? can you see that?

the stories say he was crucified and there big corwds and lot of commosion people saw him all over town risen from the dead, but how come no one has ever heard of him before? I dont' know anyone who ever saw him but he suppossedly dragged a cros through the streets? that woudl stupid. Jesus mythers assume acinent people are stupid.

another erason encyclpieas say he existed is becaue histoirans say so. historians say so becasue a doezn histoirns from that era including the two best, tacitus and Jopsheus also say so.

And, even if Jesus did exist, that does not mean he was the son of god, got raised from the dead, and performed miracles.

Ok now it comes out. that's your true motive. that's you really fear.

So, what secular evidence from before.. oh.. I'll extend it, 90 c.e. do you have that Jesus existed.

why does it have to be secular? so you can paly that same game of make the best evidence go away. take Paul out cause he's bible so that goes woooshe! he didn't exist. and now there'sno evidnece. spend the rest of your life in a lie sayin "there's no evidence" because you pretend fine evidence is no good.

in real life no scholar things Paul is bad evidence. all scholars take Paul as fine evidence for early christiantiy. so there is nothing wrong wth using Paul.

the Talmud also contians evidence form first century which Celsus barrowed.

Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

Egerton 2
Gospel of the savior
Thomas
Q
Pre Mark redaction
several of other 34 lost Gospels.






btw there is no hell, how does that change your outlook? isn't that what it's really all about?

Nope, the fact that there is no hell does not change my outlook at all. You see, you are using the bible to prove the bible. You are the master of circular arguments.
Yes, the people who wrote theological midrashes thought that they were talking about the truth, but none of them saw anything.

you are stuck on cleches and truisms. you do not understand the true nature of reason. it is not circualr to use the bible to prove the bible there is nothing in the world wrong with that and if you understood what logic is about you wuld see that. that's a lie made up by atheits becasue they can't disrprove the bible and it's the only way to fight it.

Now get this trhough your head. I will explain it once then I expet to learn it. what is ciruclar is using the bible as a supernatural authroity to ground itself as a proof of its' own supernaturalism. In other words if I say "the bible is the word of God because it says it is." that would be circalr I did nto say that. I said nothing of the kind. I am using the bible as a naturalistic atirifact. I am saying people worte this for a reason they gave us clues as to what that reason is we can learn from that and that will tell us something

there is aboslutely nothing circular abou that you learn that little one because you do not know loicg is. you dont' know what circular reasoning is....

stop spouting athiest cleches and learn what argument is realy about.

The Talmud was 4th century or later.. no primary evidence there.

wrong srong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. it was first century and before. they wrote down in the foruth century but it was around in the first century. the Mishna was wirtten in the first century. you can find that on any rabbinical webiste. go as a rabbi go ask. do some research for a change. stop spouting your half backed not understood clehches and learn something!

We do not have the words of Thallus, just some illusions about what he said from second century apologists, no evidence there, just statements of beliefs of apologists.

that does not matter in the least. what we have is not from apologsits. Julius Africans was not an apologist. he was the major historian of his day and he's an authority. we can expecept his reprot of what Thayllus says with no apprehension.

The texts from Josephus are either only partly forged or totally forged

.


the vast majority of historians believe the core passage talks about Jesus but there's another whole passage that isn't even thoguht to be forged. he says Jesus was James brother. mythical figure rarely have flesh and blood borthers!!!

http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.html

You can not prove that antiquities 18 was not totally forged by any quotes from it that date before the 4th century. No evidence there. He also was writing after 93 c.e. so

o yes I can. the Jospehus homepage guy proved it with a scientific word study.


http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.html

the Christians could have been his source (even if he wrote something).. No primary knowledge there.

that is ludicrous speculation with nothing to back its disproven by MS evidence. We have knowledge of ms older than origin or Eusebius and they contain the TF. we also have those other MS that weren't in the christian world of the maintream of the MS such as the Arabic and Syrian. they prove older readings that contain the TF and no ms we have is without it. if it was really added there should be some fragment tha doesnt' have it.


then there's the other passage, why do you foret the oher passage? that proves Jesu existed in and of itself.

We only know of Phlegon from what Africanus claimed.. Phlegon was writing in the 140's, and there are clear signs of there being an interlinear note in the sentences that Africanus uses.


An analysis of your sources show that they are third or 4th hand at the very best, often with modifications. and none of them within 50 years of the alledged events.

Africans is solid source.


you havent' come close to answering my arguments you said nothing about

Q
Egerton 2
Thoams
34 lost Gospels
Clement
Papias
Paul
Post Mark redaction (that by itself proves it)

and the others that I also mentioned.

[Cathar1950]

you are stuck on cleches and truisms. you do not understand the true nature of reason. it is not circualr to use the bible to prove the bible there is nothing in the world wrong with that and if you understood what logic is about you wuld see that. that's a lie made up by atheits becasue they can't disrprove the bible and it's the only way to fight it.

You command of the English language is astonishing. Talk about clichés, you are now accusing your circular reasoning as an atheist lie to disprove the bible. I think most here to have a good grasp of the reasoning process and use. I a questioning your reasoning process and logic in your above statement.

Now get this trhough your head. I will explain it once then I expet to learn it. what is ciruclar is using the bible as a supernatural authroity to ground itself as a proof of its' own supernaturalism. In other words if I say "the bible is the word of God because it says it is." that would be circalr I did nto say that. I said nothing of the kind. I am using the bible as a naturalistic atirifact. I am saying people worte this for a reason they gave us clues as to what that reason is we can learn from that and that will tell us something

I bet you know "something about something", Robert Denero.
What is that suppose to even mean? You are saying that a naturalistic artifact is supernatural and contains supernatural elements that are true and we need to learn them because they had their reasons. You are right you are not using circular arguments, you are using argument that are meaningless and go nowhere. Besides being a thorn in the side of any reasonable person.

there is aboslutely nothing circular abou that you learn that little one because you do not know loicg is. you dont' know what circular reasoning is....

What? Like I said no reasoning.

stop spouting athiest cleches and learn what argument is realy about.

Learn an argument that makes sense. You have shown nothing but gibberish and insults.

Mythical figures may not have flesh and blood but flesh and blood people do become mythical figures. You fail to see the difference.

Q
Egerton 2
Thoams
34 lost Gospels
Clement
Papias
Paul
Post Mark redaction (that by itself proves it)

We will get to this stuff later but I might add before we do that you have not proven anything.
Your sources have their own problems without you adding to them..