Party Pooper Response: Personally, from my 30 years of research, I think that Jesus never existed and the entire story is just that - a fictional story.

More succinctly, there are similar stories predating this concerning death and resurrection (and I am not even talking about Osiris and Mithra). There are, more or less, 'fictional stories' similar to this. So, credibility isn't on the side of the Christians. And Christians aren't even on the side of the Christians. Early Christians typically believed in a dying-savior god (the Lamb of God) represented with the Pisces (Ichthys) which in some ways represented the 'womb' (virgin birth?). Even Paul (the true god of Christianity) mostly speaks of Jesus as some ethereal being and never of his supposed existence on Earth as a real person in time. His experience is all about revelation either in vision or midrash. Jesus is a made up god. And his death and resurrection were, by gnostic and other Christian standards, done in the world between Earth and Heaven.

The theology is terse but there are enough remnants to realize that the original belief system was quite different to the one that the Romans foisted upon the world.

Jesus was real but a minor would-be prophet. An Elisha to John the Baptist's Elijah. He never saw himself as a Pauline Christ, but a Davidic messiah. After his execution by Rome for sedition, Jesus lived on as a Jewish cult figure that was reinterpreted by Paul to wrest control of the Jerusalem Church from James the Just. It was Paul's invention of Christ that ensured Jesus' survival as religious figure. Of course, much of what you say about preceding stories was in play throughout the ancient world.

Jeff,

If forced to pick one of C.S. Lewis's "trilemma" options--lord, lunatic, or liar--I would say "the middle one." Jesus clearly thought of himself as some sort of apocalyptic agent and expected to play a central role in the imminent end of the age. When his trip to Jerusalem ended instead in his ignominious death, that should have ended things. Jesus of Nazareth would have just been one of innumerable individuals suffering from extraordinary religious delusions. The fact that he suffered such delusions is quite compatible with the fact that he seemed in many ways to be an individual of remarkable charisma and intelligence. He was not the only such person in history. Joan of Arc hallucinated divine voices telling her to save France. She did, however, save France. Stonewall Jackson was a real religious loony-tune, but also the most brilliant general of the Civil War. Lewis did not give "lunatics" enough credit. More neutrally, extreme eccentricity in some respects is quite compatible with genius in others.

I'd rather be a lunatic than a lord or liar.

Excellent response!
I have been reading much about the events of the 1st century and have found plenty of support for exactly as you allege went down.
Pauline Christianity is nothing more than Roman paganism re-branded, and ironically "Christianity" was later used to unite and strengthen the weakening Roman Empire--the same empire that oppressed the Jewish community of which included Jesus and his family. The movement Jesus lived and died for was stolen from him and his brother James who was also executed--later. There is much evidence for the life and importance of James the Just and his clashes with "Paul."
It seems that Saul/Paul may have done what he did for the purpose of self-importance. He had no other path after his efforts, which included studying under Gamaliel, in order to impress and marry a wealthy Jewish princess failed. There weren't many options to elevate one's status as a low-level Roman mercenary who worked the area.

that is just incredably absurd. you must have done that reearch in Jesus myth books exclusively. there is no basis for any of it. We don't have written sources about Mythra until after the time of Paul. All the elements of Christianity are present in Judaism and all similarities between Jesus and pagan figures disappear when we use real mythical sources lie Bullfinch rather than Jesus mythers.

What are you talking about? I never mentioned "Mythra" and your assertion that I "research in Jesus myth books exclusively" is preposterous. Do yourself a favor and read Robert Eiseman's "James the Brother of Jesus" for starters..

Yes I have read Eisenman. I assumed the statement about paganism would include mythrism since that's one of the main one's talked about.

the Mithra stuff is beaten sold. the evidence that Jesus existed is proved easily. Not just strong it's as near to proof as any history could be, The Mithra thing is repudiated by UIlancy and Kumont both of whom are used by mythers you wasted your time researching. The likelihood is high that Mithrism copied Christianity not vice versa
...
http://religiousapriorijesu...

ok - let's grant that jesus was real and his mom was raped by god, er, sorry, i mean "born of a virgin" (such a miracle!). and that he died on a cross. (i wasn't there, i haven't seen pictures of this, only hollywood reenactments, but still, let's grant all that). let's grant that he rose from the dead. true - all true. but doesn't that then obviate the whole point of the linchpin of Christianity? You know, John 3:16, that god loved us so much that he "gave" his only begotten son? wasn't it at best a loan? i also point out that many people have given their lives, and I mean really *given* in that they really wound up permanently dead. isn't the sacrifice of a single altruistic human being's life a greater sacrifice than a being who knows he is really a god and will be right back in the show 3 days after crossing over?

the entire premise of christianity is bullocks.

finally, friday to sunday is only two days. where do you get this 3-day idea?

ok - let's grant that jesus was real and his mom was raped by god, er, sorry, i mean "born of a virgin" (such a miracle!).
...
O yes are really willing to reason about this stuff hu? Yea Like I'm willing to seriously consider Trump for President.
...

and that he died on a cross. (i wasn't there, i haven't seen pictures of this, only hollywood reenactments, but still, let's grant all that).
...
the photographs from the event are rough, they were only taken with Instamatics.
...

let's grant that he rose from the dead. true - all true. but doesn't that then obviate the whole point of the linchpin of Christianity? You know, John 3:16, that god loved us so much that he "gave" his only begotten son? wasn't it at best a loan? i also point out that many people have given their lives, and I mean really *given* in that they really wound up permanently dead. isn't the sacrifice of a single altruistic human being's life a greater sacrifice than a being who knows he is really a god and will be right back in the show 3 days after crossing over?
...
No. You are just misstating the theology to make a bogus point. For Christ's death to be meaningful it doesn't have to be permanent. The point that we share in his fate so we die to our sins as he died to his life them raise with him in new life.
...
the entire premise of Christianity is bullocks.
,,,
Only if you insist upon understanding it badly/
...
finally, friday to sunday is only two days. where do you get this 3-day idea?
...
It doesn't say Friday. works if you use Qumran caldender

i don't insist on "understandiing [theology] badly" - on the contrary, i understand it perfectly. it's an attempt by early, superstitious civilizations to "explain" things they did not understand and to provide a sense of cohesion and identity among various tribes, early communities, and so on. modern day religionists, including christians, cling to these foggy, fleeting notions of order imposed by a "higher power" in an attempt make sense of a world that is essentially a random chain reaction of events, where good things and bad things, or maybe just things, since "nothing is good nor bad, but thinking makes it so", happen to people that don't deserve the fates they are dealt. you have absoluetly no idea that "god died for your sins", and even if god did, it really was more of a cosmic parlor trick than a sacrifice.

you claim to understand it but your view is totally negative and it's silly. religion is good, It is vital it's nurturing it's saving it's niceness. you treat it like shit. you talk about it like it's kust a priori stupid. that is not fair that is not acute that is not valid.
...
"it's an attempt by early, superstitious civilizations to "explain" things they did not understand and to provide a sense of cohesion and identity among various tribes, early communities, and so on."
...
scare quotes indicate it's not a real explanation, your attribute the motive to superstition which means you consider it valid. Of course you limit your understanding to a reductionist idea. So you are starting the premise that religion is no good, so you on't understand it.
...
"nothing is good nor bad, but thinking makes it so", happen to people that don't deserve the fates they are dealt.
no one thinks that

you have absolutely no idea that "god died for your sins", and even if god did, it really was more of a cosmic parlor trick than a sacrifice.
...
I sure as hell do, I wrote a book about it. I have 200 scientific studies that prove it.

name a single thing divine revelation imparted to humanity.

Fiction?

You are not pooping on my party.

To the extent that there is reason to doubt that Jesus was an actual historical person, there is reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross on the same day he was crucified. To the extent that there is reason to doubt that Jesus was an actual historical person, there is reason to doubt that Jesus was alive and walking around in Jerusalem less than 48 hours after being crucified.

If there were, for example, only a 50/50 chance that Jesus was an actual historical person, then the probability that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross the same day can only have a probability of 50/50 at MOST, and it would actually have a probability less than the 50/50 chance that he existed. The probability of the existence of Jesus determines a maximum limit for the probability that he rose from the dead.

Thank you for your comments.

You did not answer my argument on Resd I think I pretty well proved that the evidence is strong.
...
http://christiancadre.blogs...
...
http://religiousapriorijesu...

Joe Hinman said:

"Secondly, they [the Gospels] are the memory of the community. I address the time differential between event and writing below. Bowen's statement vastly under estimates the role and extent of eyewitness testimony lying behind the communities. The community is the author not the namesakes. ...There is little doubt that the community is laced with and started by the witnesses. Two of them show up being nammed 50 years latter by Papias(?)[7] There are witnesses at all different levels. The witnesses do not have to be the name sakes. Johnson is right that we can't say witness X saw Jesus here and joined the Matthew community on August second, 37AD. We do know the communities were full of witnesses and they show up here and there."
===================
Response:

1. What is the evidence that the gospel of Mark was authored by a community of believers?
2. How many people were part of that community of believers? What is the evidence for your answer?
3. Where did this community of believers gather? What is your evidence for this?
4. How many people in that community of believers claimed to be eyewitnesses to one or more events in the gospel of Mark? What is the evidence for your answer?
5. How many people in that community of believers claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trial of Jesus? of the crucifixion of Jesus? of the burial of Jesus? What is your evidence?
6. How many people in the community of believers who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trial of Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, or the burial of Jesus spoke to the actual author of the gospel of Mark about their experiences and observations of these events? What is your evidence for this?
7. How many people in that community who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus really were eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus? What is your evidence for this?

I doubt that you have reasonable answers to any of these questions, but if you do have answers, I would love to hear them. If you don't have answers to these questions, then please explain why I should take your objection seriously.

I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel. The author of Mark never discusses how many eyewitnesses he spoke with in his "community". The author of Mark never even states that he obtained info about Jesus from his community or anyone from his community. This is all just speculation. Speculation is NOT the same as evidence.

Note: NT scholars disagree on where Mark was written.

"The traditional asumption that Mark was written at Rome was based on the tradition that linked Mark with Peter. Early Christian writings from Rome contain no evidence of familiarity with Mark." (The New Interpreters Bible, Vol. VIII, p.515).

"Other exegetes remain unconvinced by the claim that early Palestinian Jesus tradition, preserved among Roman Christians, accounts for the Palestinian elements in the Gospel of Mark. They locate Mark's church among the Gentile communities of the eastern provinces, possibly in Palestine or Syria." (TNIB, Vol. VIII, p.515)

Narrative criticism adds further complexity to making determinations about Mark's church:

"The difficulty in determining a concrete sociopolitical context for Mark's Gospel has been further complicated by the influence of narrative criticism. Literary critics have warned scholars against making quick judgments about the historical communities that lie behind a text. They point out that narratives can project an implied audience, which may be quite different from the actual readers." (TNIB, Vol. VIII, p.516)

So, NT scholars disagree about whether Mark was written in Rome or Palestine or Syria, and judgments about the original audience/readership of Mark are difficult and complex because literary works can have an implied audience which can be very different from the actual audience of the work.

atheist obsession with Mark as origin of Gospel story is based upon armature misunderstand. Mark was probably written by Mark not in Egypt. That's all fundie stuff. Modern scholars don't do that.
...
Gospels don't have to be written by the name sakes. Mark was not origin of the materiaal

I doubt that you have reasonable answers to any of these questions, but if you do have answers, I would love to hear them. If you don't have answers to these questions, then please explain why I should take your objection seriously.
...
I notice you are not willing to wait to see. Of course when I show you up you wont admit it even to your self. I understand what needs proving and what doesn't . But you will clutch at straws and work to find anything I';m wrong about so as to save face. I am not concerned with showing you up.
...
I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel.

...

every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given

...

The author of Mark never discusses how many eyewitnesses he spoke with in his "community". The author of Mark never even states that he obtained info about Jesus from his community or anyone from his community. This is all just speculation. Speculation is NOT the same as evidence.

...

you are assuming Mark is the origin of the story which is just utter ignorance. Attaching a number is bull shit. That's a Mcguffin. It matters not at all but something you can cling to as an unknown and thus save face that you can't disprove the arguments.

...

I said:

I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel.

Joe responded:

every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given
=============
Comment:

What "every bible scholar" assumes to be true is NOT historical evidence. I am asking for historical evidence, not opinion polls of biblical scholars.

I think you have around academia long enough to know how that plays out. there is a reason why it's Croesus. I already told you what that is, because oral traditions is not passed by Lome individuals. you are sadly mistaken to think you getting why where with this point, you are obviously truing to save a disproved argument.
(1) Jews used oral radiation, that is related to community
...
(2) Jewish writing where read in community
...
(3)a lot of work on showing rhetorically that it was oral
...
but there is also the statement by Papias about preferring oral tradition to written.
...
(5) Paul is quoting so many oral sources, maxims, smogs, creeds, the fact that they made creeds all point to oral material and communal understanding.
...
(6) Acts basically says it point blank. they moved in together so they could study the bible together. there's a community

Joe-

I believe that we disagree about premise (1) of my first argument, at least (and perhaps other premises as well).
So, let me give you an argument in support of premise (1), in order to give you a more specific target at which to aim:

6. The PN of the 4th Gospel is historically unreliable.
7. The PN of the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable.
8. IF the PN of the 4th Gospel and the PN of Mark are historically unreliable, THEN the evidence for the claim that "Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross on the same day he was crucified" is weak.
THEREFORE:
1.. The evidence for the claim that "Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and died on the cross on the same day he was crucified" is weak.

PN = Passion Narrative.

Do you accept premise (6)? Do you accept premise (7)?
I suspect that you reject premise (8). Is that correct? If so, please explain why.

I said:

The author of Mark never discusses how many eyewitnesses he spoke with in his "community". The author of Mark never even states that he obtained info about Jesus from his community or anyone from his community. This is all just speculation. Speculation is NOT the same as evidence.

Joe responded:

you are assuming Mark is the origin of the story which is just utter ignorance. Attaching a number is bull shit. That's a Mcguffin. It matters not at all but something you can cling to as an unknown and thus save face that you can't disprove the arguments.
====================
Comments:

Once again, instead of responding with substance and evidence to support your views, you simply distort my views and attack a straw man. This is why I do not take you seriously. Keep this shit up, and I will just go back to ignoring you entirely.

I am NOT assuming that Mark is the origin of all the content in his gospel, nor am I assuming that the content of his gospel came from his local "community" of believers. I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.

sorry Brad, explaining why your question is nonsequitter is substance. you want to pretend to be a big thinker but you don't want to have to think about it.
...
I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.
...
then try answering the evidence. Not only did I show your question irrelevant I also answered it. the evidence of oral tradition and pre mark redaction (PMPN pre Mark passion narrative) shows that Mark is derived fro,m older material and circulated in oral form.
...
if the shoe was on the other foot and I refused to accept what all scholars taken as given yo would not hesitate to castigate my understanding for that.

I said:

I doubt that you have reasonable answers to any of these questions, but if you do have answers, I would love to hear them. If you don't have answers to these questions, then please explain why I should take your objection seriously.

Joe responded:

I notice you are not willing to wait to see. Of course when I show you up you wont admit it even to your self. I understand what needs proving and what doesn't . But you will clutch at straws and work to find anything I';m wrong about so as to save face. I am not concerned with showing you up.
==============
Comment:

What do you mean that I'm "not willing to wait to see" whether you can answer the questions I have posed? What an idiotic thing to say! Were you watching me on video to see whether I stayed glued to my PC in breathless anticipation of your response? The fact that I left my PC and went to bed last night has no implication that I am "not willing to wait and see" whether you have answers for any of my questions.

Your mother wears army boots too! But that does not advance the discussion about the resurrection. Your initial comment (quoted above) is just unsupported insults, and has no relevance to the questions at issue here.

fair minded people have the debate then say "you can't prove your point." Unless of course they know the material expertly which you do not.

Response:

1. What is the evidence that the gospel of Mark was authored by a community of believers?
...
Mark was not the first Gospel. It's the first of the Canonical and it drew upon previous sources such as the PMPN--that communities of believers stand behind all the Gospels is standard assumption of all Bible scholars from the most radical such atheists like Price to the most liberal such as Crosson. The best evidence is the nature of redaction. Starting with Bultmann and a lot of work is done today showing oral tradition behind Mark. Oral tradition is a creature of community.

...
2. How many people were part of that community of believers? What is the evidence for your answer?
...
can't know, not relevant. enough that it began to proliferate early on.
...

3. Where did this community of believers gather? What is your evidence for this?
...
PhD diss from U.Dallas "The Mathew school" places early communities in Jerusalem. The version of Mark we have is from Syria but the theory of Ur Mark places the UM in Jerusalem.
...

4. How many people in that community of believers claimed to be eyewitnesses to one or more events in the gospel of Mark? What is the evidence for your answer?
...
the first community was drawn from the people in Jerusalem who saw Jesus and heard him preach probably all of them. Bt in different degrees. they weren't all in the inner circle. they were not all there on every occasion but they all knew the guy existed and probably most of them saw him crucified.

...
5. How many people in that community of believers claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trial of Jesus? of the crucifixion of Jesus? of the burial of Jesus? What is your evidence?
...
repetitive the assertion that without a head count the evidence is no good is fallacious.We have writings of students of people who Knew Jesus and heard his teachings. Every story doesn't have to be validated.l All we really need is the death, burial,resurrection, and general teachings.

...

6. How many people in the community of believers who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trial of Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, or the burial of Jesus spoke to the actual author of the gospel of Mark about their experiences and observations of these events? What is your evidence for this?
...

why do we need to validate the trial?
...
7. How many people in that community who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus really were eyewitnesses of the trials, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus? What is your evidence for this?
...

you are just making a blanket assumption that every word must be proved that shows you don't understand the basics of the faith. you are just truing to poke holes rather than really understated it. That's not what "real thinkers" do
...
see my page on 8 levels of verification
...
http://religiousapriorijesu...

I asked this question:

1. What is the evidence that the gospel of Mark was authored by a community of believers?

Joe responded:

Mark was not the first Gospel. It's the first of the Canonical and it drew upon previous sources such as the PMPN--that communities of believers stand behind all the Gospels is standard assumption of all Bible scholars from the most radical such atheists like Price to the most liberal such as Crosson. The best evidence is the nature of redaction. Starting with Bultmann and a lot of work is done today showing oral tradition behind Mark. Oral tradition is a creature of community.
===========
Comments:

I asked for evidence (meaning historical evidence), and the "standard assumption of all Bible scholars" is NOT evidence, at least not historical evidence.

Here is the reasoning Joe suggests:

1. The nature of redaction shows that [SOME? or MOST? or ALL?] of the material in the gospel of Mark was based on oral tradition.

2. Oral traditions are [USUALLY? or ALWAYS?] products of a community.

Therefore [unstated conclusion]:

3. [SOME? or MOST? or ALL?] of the material in the gospel of Mark was [PROBABLY? or VERY PROBABLY? or CERTAINLY?] the product of a community.

I am not impressed by this argument.

First of all, there is unclarity in the quantification here, which needs to be cleared up by Joe. The argument is too unclear as it stands to be fully and properly evaluated.

Second, the conclusion of the argument (to the extent that I understand it) seems too weak to be of significance. Even if I completely accept the strongest version of the conclusion (ie. "ALL of the material in the gospel of Mark was CERTAINLY the product of a community"), it leaves open the real possibility that the author of Mark gathered oral traditions from MANY different religious communities and had no specific community to which he belonged.

Third, I don't think Joe can provide strong evidence that would establish the strongest version of this conclusion. I suspect that the best he can show is that "MOST of the material in the gospel of Mark was PROBABLY the product of a community."

If this is the actual conclusion of the argument, then it fails to get at the main question at issue, which is whether ALL or MOST of the material in the gospel of Mark about the trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus derive from a particular community that contained multiple alleged eyewitnesses of these events and that the stories and details in Mark's passion narrative originated from those eyewitnesses.

Showing that MOST of the content of Mark derives from some community or other is a far cry from showing that MOST of the content of the passion narrative derives from a specific community that contained multiple alleged eyewitnesses of the events described in the passion narrative of Mark and that the oral traditions in that community about those events originated with those alleged eyewitnesses.

I am not impressed by this argument.

First of all, there is unclarity in the quantification here, which needs to be cleared up by Joe. The argument is too unclear as it stands to be fully and properly evaluated.
...
you have continually failed to establish any significance for knowing an exact number. I've given reasons why we don't need it so you are not really making a point, you are doing exactly what I said you would do. Using it to have something to say because you can't answer my main arguments.
...
Second, the conclusion of the argument (to the extent that I understand it) seems too weak to be of significance. Even if I completely accept the strongest version of the conclusion (ie. "ALL of the material in the gospel of Mark was CERTAINLY the product of a community"), it leaves open the real possibility that the author of Mark gathered oral traditions from MANY different religious communities and had no specific community to which he belonged.

...

why would that make any difference if the material is right in the first place. I've also argued we only have to know about three facts we don't have to substantiate every word.

...

Third, I don't think Joe can provide strong evidence that would establish the strongest version of this conclusion. I suspect that the best he can show is that "MOST of the material in the gospel of Mark was PROBABLY the product of a community."

...

of course all of it came from a community. No one thinks the individual name sakes wrote it anymore. you don't show me why that matters. Again we don't have to prove all of it.

...

If this is the actual conclusion of the argument, then it fails to get at the main question at issue, which is whether ALL or MOST of the material in the gospel of Mark about the trials, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus derive from a particular community that contained multiple alleged eyewitnesses of these events and that the stories and details in Mark's passion narrative originated from those eyewitnesses.

...

you are clutching at straws more. First, that is not the main question. Aspects by an individual author could be from an eye witness. Secondly you have a burden to pro er your argument . you must show why it comes from a single author.

...

Showing that MOST of the content of Mark derives from some community or other is a far cry from showing that MOST of the content of the passion narrative derives from a specific community that contained multiple alleged eyewitnesses of the events described in the passion narrative of Mark and that the oral traditions in that community about those events originated with those alleged eyewitnesses.

...

you invented the none issue of how much because you have no other argument. BTW we can quantify it. especially though the synoptic sayings.
...
why are you obsessed with Mark if you don/t think it's the first one? you have to take them all together; the evidence of community in John is even stronger than the others.

...

Joe,

I don't take you seriously as a thinker or debater.

However, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to critique my views on the resurrection, and I will try to find time to respond to some of the points and objections you have made.

Bradley I see you have been taking debate lessons from Donald Trump
...

I think you are an idiot. Anyone who can't understand the basis of religion as experiential and tries to reduce iot to a set of propositions so he can control is an idiot. I have no respect for you as a thinker. you don't know anything about debate.I beat some of the top teams in the country in debate you do not know what debate means.

...
Obviously You know I bested your third rate bull shit sand you are throwing a tantrum.

Joe,

If you produce actual intelligent and substantive arguments, then my opinion of your ability to think and argue will improve.

If you continue to insult me and to boast about your amazing ability to argue and debate, my opinion of your abilities will continue to decline, and I will stop responding to your comments.

can't take your own meds? why don't you give me the chance to make my arguments without having to fight 10 opponents at once. come on my boards and debate me on my arguments I'll show you your ideas are amateurish and silly,
...
I promise no insults. I will be the soul of description and politeness. I'll even have an atheist referee. If I am such poor thinker and my arguments are so bad what do you have to lose?

Brad I can only answer by saying you don't know what substance is. I have a Masters degree in theology. I/ve studied biblical scholarship all my life, you have not answered my six arguments proving comity. instead you cling to irrelevant issues because you can press gaps in knowledge but you con't even consider if they matter or not then you have the gaul to say I don't have substance. what a thinker!
...
I don't take you seriously as a thinker or debater.

"I have a Masters degree in theology."

An expert in the nonexistant, a scholar of the unknowable and a connoisseur of the ineffable. How quaint!

Joe, as far as I'm concerned you're a really smart guy, a great researcher and a skilled debater. But I would have to respectfully disagree on one point. Bradley may be wrong, and I believe he is, but he's clearly no idiot.

I think the problem is that Joe comes across on this site as if he were engaged in the debate equivalent of a street fight. I'm aware Joe has had many negative experiences with other atheists on other sites, so I think I understand why he may be conditioned to respond the way he does. But to call someone an idiot -- when that person is clearly not an idiot -- is just embarrassing. For Joe.

Not taking sides, but Bradley wasn't exactly polite either.

Brad:I don't take you seriously as a thinker or debater.
...
to call me a non thinker when I am obviously a thinking is fighting words., what the fuck, how would you like being a thinker is the most important thinning to me. I may be an idiot an asshole, lazy, failure washed up, nothing, but god damn I am a fucking thinker!
...
hje obviously said said that to hurt me. why was it necessary? why not make the argument?
...
as for debater that's another one You do not know debate. none of you were in debate. I was in debate high school and college. want a letter from my coach?
he is only sayinmg that because I threaten his atheist justification that he thinks keeps big mean old God off his back.

I'm not sure if you meant to insinuate I don't know debate, when I did that on high school, but put that to the side. I understand why you would be upset by Bradley's remarks. I don't expect this to make it any better but I do note that he never said you are not a thinker. He said he doesn't respect you as a thinker.

well I was talking to Bowen actually. I should have not gotten my dander up. Sorry about that. frankly I'd rather talk about debate.

There's enough guilt to go around. Few of us are as polite as we should be. Let's call it a day and get back to the issue at hand.

His views are myopic, he can't see the forest for the trees he assumes his way is the only way to see it.

Joe, When a person in a debate starts calling others names, it's no longer a debate.

I taught basic debate to students for years. A speaker was disqualified, or at least censured when, he/she name-called or used demeaning remarks.

this is not the national forensic league. We are not at a high school speech tournament. He began by telling me that I'm mot a thinker why is that not insulting? It is insulting especially since in past I have toid him that I respect him. which I no longer do.
\...
my views undermine his pet theories that justify his atheism.

" It is clear that God, if God exists, would never raise such a false prophet from the dead, nor would God allow some other person to raise such a false prophet from the dead."

I suppose one could raise a Hicks-like soul building theodicy to defend it. God raises a yhwh-worshipping false prophet from the dead to help deceive the credulous. Some souls in this world must overcome their credulity, build critical thinking skills, and develop a mind free from the authoritarian-like tendencies of fundamentalist religion as a purifying process in preparation for a perfect afterlife. Those who die still under the delusion get a purgatory-like, refresher catch up course, so they can join their colleagues in the afterlife. This deception is the only logically possible way to maximize the number of purified souls in all possible worlds. God could not have made creation any other way and could not have failed to create, yada yada yada…

Perhaps there is an easier way for Bible god to maximize the number of purified souls. God is believed to stuff a soul into a zygote at conception. Currently "spontaneous abortions" occur with half of all conceptions. Along with other abortions and infant and child mortality, death rates before the age of accountability are above 65%. By these means God harvests souls without all the earthly noise of living or sinning. No muss no fuss: conception, stuff it with a soul, kill it quickly. Voila! A harvest of pure souls that far exceeds the number of taciturn, unreliable "saved" Christians who die still believing.

"Perhaps there is an easier way for Bible god to maximize the number of purified souls."

Yes, this theodicy would suffer from the same deficits as Hicks', although in this scenario, this isn't Bible god who is being defended, but a perfect, tri-omni god.

Certainly, a moral agent would have an ethical obligation to refrain from creating souls it could not protect from the risk of eternal damnation.

If I'm not mistaken Hick's soul-building theodicy would encompass those I designate as "taciturn, unreliable saved Christians who die still believing" having suffered through a perfect god's soul building. While soul harvesting would be included in the vast array of genocidal, child sacrificing and despicably immoral behaviors of Bible god. In my vision Bible god murders the bodies of these young souls to collect them before they have a chance to join what would be a perfect god's plan to torture them into godly purity by life's inevitable events.