And they say, "There's no Evidence ... !!!"

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
rebutted soundly by Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace

lol, Lee Strobel? Are you serious? He's a joke even among Christian historians.

But by all means, if you think it's been rebutted, by all means, post how it was rebutted.


The "extra biblical evidence" comes decades after the fact, and not from anyone who was on site. That's like me trying to write about some event from the 30s going on only word of mouth that's been passed on through a couple generations. That's simply not compelling evidence.

We do know of some historians who's work has survived, and lived in the area at the time of the events in question. Philo of Alexandria is one such example, he is a noted Roman Historian with ties to the Royal House of Judea and almost certainly would have been in Jerusalem at some points during the lifetime of Jesus. Yet, no mention is made of Jesus at all in his works.

That's puzzling, as even if he didn't follow Jesus, he would have certainly written about a man who lead such a popular movement. He wrote about, and we still have records of much less important local holy men or false prophets. In Jesus case, the whole town showed up to meet him, and things culminated in an illegal trial in front of the Roman Governor himself, and execution, and then he rose from the dead. No historian would have totally ignored a major incident like that.

Philo is the most notable example, however there are other contemporary historians who should have had some knowledge of Jesus if the gospel stories are true, and we have nothing more but silence from them as well.

In essence, we have some notes from historians decades after the fact, far removed from the time or place, and they usually are only relaying beliefs that Christians at the time held. It's also worth noting that even these historians were either Pagan or Jewish, so even being a couple decades removed from the events in question, they heard the stories and didn't think they were credible either, or they would have become Christians themselves.

The historians at the time had no idea of the events in question. Meaning they were either fabricated, or Jesus was such a minor figure that he wasn't noticed by any significant number of people. Even if it's option #2, that wipes out huge key chunks of the gospel narrative.

you are neatly sidestepping the whole debate and the cause of & definition of Faith = trust in the testimony of credible eyewitnesses

2 Peter 1:16

no human in history has blindly believed the claims of the Apostles about the resurrection of Jesus. No human who ever heard the claim was not initially skeptical. Every human who ever heard the claim was initially sceptical.

What many people have come to trust that Saint Peter in Saint Paul and the Apostles in the New Testament authors were trustworthy people. And that it's Less likely that they were wrong or lying then that the resurrection and supernatural miracles did not occur.

I witnessed testimony from credible believable trustworthy person. Is evidence it is accepted as direct evidence in every court of law on earth? You cannot say there is no evidence there is EXTRAORDINARY evidence given by the extraordinary transformation of the Apostles. Upon witnessing ( What they themselves came to believe was) the resurrection.

The only thing there is not is CNN, Fox News video coverage.

LOTS of humans have blindly believed the claims, including virtually every kid that goes to Sunday school. I blindly believed Jesus rose from the dead when I was 5 years old, because that's what the teacher said. Many people take those beliefs they learn in childhood and stick with them for the rest of their lives, never seriously examining them.

In my case, I started to doubt in my early teen years, and had rejected the beliefs in their entirety by my 20s when I started seriously reading up on them.


No it isn't.

THAT'S a very good question

however, rebutted years ago by the same authors i referenced :)

all of the non-canonical gospels are PROVABLY late

for example, the Gospel of Thomas quotes the Diatesseron in Syriac... Same words same order

Syriac Diatesseron = 175-200ad

The Gospel of Thomas is widely dated to the first century, the view that it quotes the Diatesseron is the opinion of Nicholas Perrin, who's theory has been examined and discredited by other historians. It is far from a consensus historical view, in fact Perrin is the only person who's ever really promoted that idea.

with cause, the three synoptic gospels, which were based on the book of Mark, were circulating amongst Christians from ~60ad...

the others were largely plagiarized by much later "upstarts" like Marcion

Try again, Mark is dated to the early 70s.

yes, ones they concocted

All of the gospels are concocted, even the ones you believe.

Mohamed, allegedly a prophet, may have been influenced by those "alternative" Christianities

That's a possibility. I'm not sure how it's relevant though.

violates accepted Scripture,risen Jesus had wounds, ate meals, etc.

Violates your accepted scripture maybe, but your religious views violated their scripture. Both of you have no hard evidence to back your views in any case.

again, non canonical gospels are probably false by text critical means, text criticism, eg. Details and names not consonant with first century Judah

The canonical gospels, especially Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke have this problem too.

exactly why orthodoxy won out

Orthodoxy won out hundreds of years after the fact. It won out mainly because of marketing, luck, and oppression once it gained a position of strength. In the first and second centuries, it was just one of many minority views on Christianity.

except that orthodoxy won out, predictably

if we were both Spock Vulcan logical, this discussion would quickly boil down to either orthodox Christianity...the resurrection actually occurred

or the Islamic view, that the resurrection APPEARED to actually occur

but, if you accept that "impostor" view... Then how is it everyone on all sides were fooled?

John the beloved apostle and Mary mother of Jesus stood at the foot of the cross for hours? How is it they were fooled?

But if you say they were in on it? Then, how is it that pilot and Ananias and Caiaphas and the entire Jewish Sanhedrin. All of Jesus is enemies who wanted him crucified and also dealt with him all morning for hours on end? How is it that they were all fooled?

So if you then say that Jesus really was crucified and that an impostor took over his role AFTER the crucifixion. Then you have the same problem? How is it that the impostor? Fooled. All of the Apostles into thinking that he was really the risen Jesus, fooling them. So thoroughly that they all went to their executions, claiming that he was the real deal.

And once again if you say that they were all somehow in on the conspiracy, then what about Saint Paul. He was an ardent opponent? He was a pharisee. On the side of the Sanhedrin and they hostile Jewish authorities. But he said he saw the risen Jesus and so became a Christian.

Once again everyone on every side of the issue agreed that Jesus appeared to be risen. And the appearance of the risen Christ was so convincing that everyone went to their martyrdoms and executions for their testimony.

For 2000 years, the logic has been like this Saint Peter and Saint Paul were honest caring. Generous kind hearted men. Who always appeared to tell the truth and who devoted their lives to charity and social justice? They were activists for the poor. Their care and concern healed people. They certainly appeared to be the most trustworthy people in history.

They gave everyone their words of Honor that they had witnessed Jesus Christ crucified and then resurrected. They told everybody that they could trust their word. They gave them their word of Honor and they were executed dying for their word of Honor without changing or retracting their testimony.

So caught between a rock and a hard place caught between the improbability of a resurrection event and the improbability of Saint Peter and Saint Paul either lying or being deceptive...

for two thousand years, people have, weighing the evidence, chosen to accept the claims and testimony of Saint Peter in Saint Paul that resurrection actually occurred

that's the faith. That's the TRUSTING in What certainly seems by all appearances to be completely credible eyewitness testimony.

It is the case that people who reject the supernatural. Conclusion have been trying to figure out what "actually happened" for 2000 years. Mohammed was aware of their debates and discussions the Quran claims that "They are all without certain knowledge". Either the resurrection really occurred or everybody has been fooled the entire time. Which one?

The fact that the orthodox view won out wasn't at all predictable in the early centuries of Christianity. Had any other version won out, you'd be arguing in favour of (for example) Marcionism, and saying how predictable it was that it won out as well.

As for the examples you cited, you're relying on the stories being true. You haven't established that anyone was actually standing at the foot of any cross, or that there ever was a crucifixion. It's reasonable to believe some figures in early Christianity were real, but what was attributed to them we have very little reason to believe.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
...and what time, exactly, was that?

Ok. Thank you for your clarification. This is helpful since none of us really wants to mislead others by how we might articulate our arguments, and we wouldn't want people to get the impression that Marcionism was in some way "the most popular" form of Christianity at some time during the centuries in which it had a following.

I'm familiar with Ehrman already, but thanks for the reference.

The second century would have been their peak time. The Marcionites were in decline by the third century.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You can see it however you want to but I will give all glory to God for what He has done in my life. I don’t expect you to be able to see all that He has blessed me with that I was incapable of accomplishing on my own for 30 years. After I came to Christ these things happened in 2 years. I won’t go into detail because it won’t make any difference. He who seeks will find and to him who knocks the door will be opened. Anyone who doesn’t want to find Him won’t. At least not until they’re ready to give Him a try. I hope you find God one day before it’s too late.

Cool story

My argument still stands.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Explain how he bastardized the bible, when the bible wasn't a thing at that point?
Yes, I fully understand that there was no agreed upon formation of the New Testament at the time during which Marcion lived, and of course, I am being a little facetious and anachronistic in saying that Marcion bastardized the Bible; nevertheless, he wasn't very insightful in his interpretive measures. If anything, he had the interpretive sensitivity of a person with a severely ingrained sense of ultra-literalism ... and a large bank account.

Moreover, he completely jettisoned what we consider to be the Old Testament, essentially anathematizing wholesale the Jewish books and then arbitrarily, and he inconsistently I might add chose a portion of Luke and some of Paul's epistles as his 'go to' texts by which he proffered his truncated, erratic teaching. I'm guessing he had some moral guilt to paper over .......................... not unlike how many people today do, ay?

There were dozens of gospels floating around, each sect had their own. There was no canon at that time in history.
Sure. So what?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes, I fully understand that there was no agreed upon formation of the New Testament at the time during which Marcion lived, and of course, I am being a little facetious and anachronistic in saying that Marcion bastardized the Bible; nevertheless, he wasn't very insightful in his interpretive measures. If anything, he had the interpretive sensitivity of a person with a severely ingrained sense of ultra-literalism ... and a large bank account.

Moreover, he completely jettisoned what we consider to be the Old Testament, essentially anathematizing wholesale the Jewish books and then arbitrarily, and he inconsistently I might add chose a portion of Luke and some of Paul's epistles as his 'go to' texts by which he proffered his truncated, erratic teaching. I'm guessing he had some moral guilt to paper over .......................... not unlike how many people today do, ay?

Imagine the gall of taking the "perfect inerrant word of god" literally. What a mook, eh?

Based on his theology, discarding the old testament made sense. The god of the bible was viewed as the bad guy, and the Old Testament was his book.

Based on what's written in the Old Testament, and how quickly modern Christians are to ignore it, I can't say Marcion was out of line. In reality, if I had to pick one Christian worldview, at least his is more consistent with the idea of a supremely moral god, and the salvation story makes far more logical sense.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what you mean. Got an example?
...oh, I guess not (mostly because I just don't want to go looking for them). In fact, in thinking this over, it may be more accurate to say that many of today's atheists and skeptics are adapting the moral complaints of Socrates and Epicurus as they make the effort to apply them then to the concepts about God which think they interpret from the Bible. Let's just instead call it the "Modern Moral Reprehensibility Gripe." How's that?

Never heard of it.
Yeah, it's an anthology that is chock full of atheistic analytic essays, just one after another that attempts to defame and disprove any remaining seemingly logical substance by which any Christian anywhere might attempt to morally exonerate the God of the Bible. No big deal, really.

It depends on the argument which specifics I'd cite. My point was that I don't have to rely on my own subjective opinion on what is bad and what is good, I'll agree with the Christian on what is bad and what is good. In general though, you could take your pick of sins and ask, "Why does God allow it if He hates it?". I'm not asking from a, "Why does God allow things I hate?" perspective, I'm accepting as a premise that the things God hates are bad without needing to look to myself for a subjective opinion on the topic.
Ok. So, do you have a comprehensive list that you've taken from the Bible about what you think God's overall moral agenda seems to be? I ask, because I don't have one, but I am a collector ...

Now when folks, including myself, bring up things the Bible overlooks like slavery, or rape, or genocide, you could look at it that way. I think it's safe to infer that those things are bad based on the whole "love your neighbor" principle though. Honestly, those arguments, while fun, are probably more of an appeal to emotion than anything else, like The Argument from Objective Morality. Those arguments just bring up hot button issues for people to be passionate about. It would be better to use something more benign, like... Oh, I dunno... Chocolate ice cream. That seems to make people more incensed than talking about genocide though...
....yeah. And what if God ................. well, I won't go 'there' here. :rolleyes: I'll just say this instead: it seems to be a prevailing notion that God's (and even Jesus') love for us is supposed to mean that He is now ready to be "nice" to us, but not only that, but to be nice in terms particular to the "Politically Correct" crowd.

I had to trace back through the thread to find Reason #3. I jumped in here out of nowhere, and I haven't been following the whole thread super-closely. I'm going to quote it here just for reference for me.
That's ok. Since you've admitted it, I won't hold it against you. :cool:

Meh... Didn't we see these manifestations for the thousands of years before the NT made the claim that we would see them for the next thousands of years? If there are other sins and evils that the NT "predicted" for us to apply the same sort of questioning, were they also rampant for thousands of years leading up to Jesus? It sounds a bit like predicting the Sun will rise tomorrow. I don't think it's noteworthy that they were right. In fact, it would be downright weird if they were wrong.
I rather think that instead of it being weird we take the tact that Jesus and His Apostle's prescience about oncoming evils can't just be boiled down to a general expectation for ............"social disagreement."

But, feel free to explain further by what you mean that "it would be weird" if they were wrong. I'm listening. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Imagine the gall of taking the "perfect inerrant word of god" literally. What a mook, eh?
Yes, you said! Marcion was a mook! I guess in your estimation it's "ok" to take an Exacto-Knife and pare down, say, the Gospel of Luke and various epistles of Paul as you see fit? Sure, I understand that every single one of us can only see the world the way in which each one of us actually does, but c'mon! Basically, Marcion had no hermeneutical sense, other than that he preferred the concept of 'niceness' to that of the fact that sometimes, many times, the truth hurts.

Based on his theology, discarding the old testament made sense. The god of the bible was viewed as the bad guy, and the Old Testament was his book.
Well, he bastardized Paul's writings in order to accommodate his little moral fetish.

Based on what's written in the Old Testament, and how quickly modern Christians are to ignore it, I can't say Marcion was out of line.
Oh, I can. And I will. Then after that, I'll criticize the modern social philosophies of our day..........................................even though I'll agree with everyone else that niceness is one of the nicest things that could ever happen to us in our daily lives.

In reality, if I had to pick one Christian worldview, at least his is more consistent with the idea of a supremely moral god, and the salvation story makes far more logical sense.
Yeah, cutting Paul up to get rid of vestiges of the God of the Old Testament....... is very consistent if one is a Devil.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes, you said! Marcion was a mook! I guess in your estimation it's "ok" to take an Exacto-Knife and pare down, say, the Gospel of Luke and various epistles of Paul as you see fit? Sure, I understand that every single one of us can only see the world the way in which each one of us actually does, but c'mon! Basically, Marcion had no hermeneutical sense, other than that he preferred the concept of 'niceness' to that of the fact that sometimes, many times, the truth hurts.

Oh please, modern Christians do that to the bible all the time. Maybe not with a literal knife, but they ignore and refuse to acknowledge the parts of the bible they don't like.

Going back a couple hundred years though, Thomas Jefferson himself actually did take a literal razor blade to the parts of the New Testament he didn't like. You can view the original book at the Smithsonian.

Marcion's views were a plausible solution to many of the problems that continue to haunt Christianity today. For example, his theology is a working solution to the problem of evil.

Well, he bastardized Paul's writings in order to accommodate his little moral fetish.

From what I'm aware, he used the same epistles that appear in the modern bible. He didn't have as many epistles, but the ones that are there would be recognized by modern Christians.

Oh, I can. And I will. Then after that, I'll criticize the modern social philosophies of our day..........................................even though I'll agree with everyone else that niceness is one of the nicest things that could ever happen to us in our daily lives.

Yeah, cutting Paul up to get rid of vestiges of the God of the Old Testament....... is very consistent if one is a Devil.

It also works if the god of the old testament is a moral monster, as Marcion believed. Based on Old Testament stories about him, I can't say his beliefs are unjustified. That's a common criticism of Yahweh even today.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
...oh, I guess not (mostly because I just don't want to go looking for them). In fact, in thinking this over, it may be more accurate to say that many of today's atheists and skeptics are adapting the moral complaints of Socrates and Epicurus as they make the effort to apply them then to the concepts about God which think they interpret from the Bible. Let's just instead call it the "Modern Moral Reprehensibility Gripe." How's that?
You mean like how people try to use Euthypro's Dilemma? You've called it a "maladaptation" if I remember correctly. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

Ok. So, do you have a comprehensive list that you've taken from the Bible about what you think God's overall moral agenda seems to be? I ask, because I don't have one, but I am a collector ...
The ultimate goal is to eventually destroy all evil, yes? So it naturally poses the question of why it exists in the first place if there's an omnipotent being that hates evil. My point in responding to your post was to say that I don't bother asking things like, "Why does God hate homosexuality?" or some other thing that I would subjectively find acceptable. I'd ask "Why did God create the things He hates?". I know "free will" is the refutation people throw back at that question, but I don't think God has free will, so I don't see what's so great about it.
....yeah. And what if God ................. well, I won't go 'there' here. :rolleyes: I'll just say this instead: it seems to be a prevailing notion that God's (and even Jesus') love for us is supposed to mean that He is now ready to be "nice" to us, but not only that, but to be nice in terms particular to the "Politically Correct" crowd.
Like I said above, I'm not going to bother arguing about whether it's a sin to be gay or some SJW issue like that. I wouldn't argue from that direction. I'll say this, I'm nice to people I love. If God loves us, why isn't He nice?
I rather think that instead of it being weird we take the tact that Jesus and His Apostle's prescience about oncoming evils can't just be boiled down to a general expectation for ............"social disagreement."

But, feel free to explain further by what you mean that "it would be weird" if they were wrong. I'm listening. :cool:
I'm not talking about a general sort of "social disagreement". I mean the things they specifically predict. Take false messiahs. Isn't every founder of every religion a false messiah? Haven't there been false religions and false messiahs basically forever? Wouldn't the story of the Golden Calf be this same sort of thing? What "oncoming evil" did they predict that is unique from all the other evils that already came?

I know I'm answering pretty broadly about all of these things. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of more than one of these subjects at a time though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh please, modern Christians do that to the bible all the time. Maybe not with a literal knife, but they ignore and refuse to acknowledge the parts of the bible they don't like.
Yes, thanks for that bit of 'truth,' Dave "Marx" Ellis. Let's just all get on the bandwagon since everyone is now doing it (supposedly).

Going back a couple hundred years though, Thomas Jefferson himself actually did take a literal razor blade to the parts of the New Testament he didn't like. You can view the original book at the Smithsonian.
Thanks anyway---I already have a copy of it. Jefferson was a goober for doing that, too! I hope he repented of having done so before he died.

Marcion's views were a plausible solution to many of the problems that continue to haunt Christianity today. For example, his theology is a working solution to the problem of evil.
It's a 'working' solution? How's this the case, exactly? :scratch:

From what I'm aware, he used the same epistles that appear in the modern bible. He didn't have as many epistles, but the ones that are there would be recognized by modern Christians.
... my readings say that Marcion did a little more than simply 'collect' his favorite Pauline epistles.

It also works if the god of the old testament is a moral monster, as Marcion believed. Based on Old Testament stories about him, I can't say his beliefs are unjustified. That's a common criticism of Yahweh even today.
....I hope you realize that the ice is fairly thin under your feet. But suite yourself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes, thanks for that bit of 'truth,' Dave "Marx" Ellis. Let's just all get on the bandwagon since everyone is now doing it (supposedly).

Marx? I assume you must mean Groucho thanks to my wit.

Thanks anyway---I already have a copy of it. Jefferson was a goober for doing that, too! I hope he repented of having done so before he died.

Or he had a better moral understanding than most people of his day, and a significant percentage of people in the modern day.

It's a 'working' solution? How's this the case, exactly? :scratch:

The problem of evil essentially exists because god is referred to as all powerful, all knowing, and omni-benevolent. That conflicts with the reality that evil exists in the world.

Under Marcion's theology, the god you know of is the bad guy. That perfectly explains the existence of evil, as the widely recognized god is responsible for the corruption. The real god has been pushed out of the way by Yahweh, who is an impostor.

The real god sent Jesus to try to save the world from Yahweh, and establish a link to the real god, who is actually omni-benevolent.

There was no claim that the real god was all-powerful or all knowing, in fact not much was defined about that deity apart from the fact that it was the true source of goodness. If it were not all powerful, or all knowing, it's completely reasonable to say Yahweh tricked him at some point, took over and corrupted the world.

Hence, you avoid the problem of evil entirely.

... my readings say that Marcion did a little more than simply 'collect' his favorite Pauline epistles.

....I hope you realize that the ice is fairly thin under your feet. But suite yourself.

Good for you.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If God is real, there should be evidence of it. Lots of evidence. Overpowering amounts of evidence.
But you don't have it, do you?
How strange.

Not strange at all.
We both look at the ocean. I said: I see evidence of God. You said: I don't.
That is the nature of evidence. Only those who understand can see it.

Now, you try this:
You and a kid both see a penny. You say, I see an evidence of mining. The kid says: I don't.

Understand?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Marx? I assume you must mean Groucho thanks to my wit.
Not exactly, but I'll let that pass due to your successful use of humor here. :rolleyes:

Or he had a better moral understanding than most people of his day, and a significant percentage of people in the modern day.
... I think we'd have to actually know what his Axiological underpinnings are, along with some other things, before we could really say any of what you're trying to say.

The problem of evil essentially exists because god is referred to as all powerful, all knowing, and omni-benevolent. That conflicts with the reality that evil exists in the world.
Yes, that's the rumor I keep getting wind of as I stand here down wind.

Under Marcion's theology, the god you know of is the bad guy. That perfectly explains the existence of evil, as the widely recognized god is responsible for the corruption. The real god has been pushed out of the way by Yahweh, who is an impostor.
Well, I don't think we can say that it "perfectly explains" the existence of evil, but I do realize that Marcion's views can be conceptualized in various ways, however skewed and inconsistent they may actually be.

The real god sent Jesus to try to save the world from Yahweh, and establish a link to the real god, who is actually omni-benevolent.
..........excuse me just a moment while I don my field boots and a close pin for my nose.

There was no claim that the real god was all-powerful or all knowing, in fact not much was defined about that deity apart from the fact that it was the true source of goodness. If it were not all powerful, or all knowing, it's completely reasonable to say Yahweh tricked him at some point, took over and corrupted the world.
All I can say is that Marcion sounds like he was a real wise-guy.

Hence, you avoid the problem of evil entirely.
...yes, entirely. :rolleyes:

Good for you.
I wasn't talking about me, so no, it's not good for me to know that your standing on thin ice.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not strange at all.
We both look at the ocean. I said: I see evidence of God. You said: I don't.
That is the nature of evidence. Only those who understand can see it.

Now, you try this:
You and a kid both see a penny. You say, I see an evidence of mining. The kid says: I don't.

Understand?

Or, on the flip side, you and I both see a penny. I say I see evidence of a mint, you say you see evidence of pink elephants.

It works both ways.

Moral of the story is, you need to present and justify your evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not exactly, but I'll let that pass due to your successful use of humor here. :rolleyes:

... I think we'd have to actually know what his Axiological underpinnings are, along with some other things, before we could really say any of what you're trying to say.

Yes, that's the rumor I keep getting wind of as I stand here down wind.

Well, I don't think we can say that it "perfectly explains" the existence of evil, but I do realize that Marcion's views can be conceptualized in various ways, however skewed and inconsistent they may actually be.

..........excuse me just a moment while I don my field boots and a close pin for my nose.

All I can say is that Marcion sounds like he was a real wise-guy.

...yes, entirely. :rolleyes:

I wasn't talking about me, so no, it's not good for me to know that your standing on thin ice.


Seeing as you didn't really rebut anything I wrote, I'm assuming my argument still stands....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Seeing as you didn't really rebut anything I wrote, I'm assuming my argument still stands....

....which argument? The one where you ignored the fact that Marcion took scissors to Paul's letters?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,923
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you say you "know" and have "proved" about the "axiomatic" God is tenuous in the extreme. It seems to be some form of the Kalaam argument, wherein you think the universe cannot come into being without a creator of some kind. And no, throwing "E=mc2" in does not particularly help your case.
Just so that I am not misunderstood, I feel I should say that I have not attempted to prove any of the things I know about God by pointing out that the term is used as an axiom, I merely was defining the term in Christian thought as pertains to existing.

I don't know who Kalaam is, but you are essentially correct in that Christians believe in the eternal existence of a Creator of some kind, but more accurately they know Him Personally. If I might make a few points about such lines of reasoning. When traversing the semantics of a true dichotomy, psychologically it is only reasonable to state that the energy of creation comes from somewhere or something, simply because to say the opposite that it comes from nowhere and nothing is an all conclusive answer that does not even allow for either deductive nor inductive reasoning to even occur.

Hence, according to such limits in psycho-semantics, when discounting a Creator source of energy for the universe, the only other viable course I can perceive, is to consider that the universe it's self is eternal, has no beginning and therefore is not created. In such a case, the term God still remains as an axiom but would be referencing the universe as our creator.

For this very reason Albert Einstein set out to prove the theory that there was no beginning to the universe so as to establish no need for a Creator of the universe, but instead he actually ended up proving the opposite, whereupon he then expressed that God was a strict determinist. There is a constant that is proven in E=mc2 concerning energy wherein time and space are relative to the speed of light.

Third, I have no intention of accepting the existence of God in order to debate you. The existence of God is what you have to provide evidence for.
To be clear, I've only said that you/ I/anyone, would first have to accept the existence of God as an axiom before they could honestly ponder whether God is a person or a thing, simply because it is pointless to proceed to ponder whether God is a person or thing when it is not even understood what is meant by the term God.

I mean no offense when I say that you appear to have an aversion to the term "God". You probably have a reason that is justifiable in a subjective sense, but it obviously compromises your objectivity since you cannot accept the definition of God as an axiom even though you initially said you would go with the Christian definition.

As a Christian I cannot prove that God exists when you don't accept what the term God means.

Essentially, you're just saying, "if there's no God, how did we get here?" And the answer, of course, is, "I don't know, and you need to provide evidence if you think you do.
That's precisely why the term God is an axiom regarding the existence of a source of creation. I grant you that to ask the question of how did I get here in any physical sense, acknowledges I got here somehow and I don't know how. But that does not preclude the existence of an answer, it presumes there is one.

I doubt you would ever imagine someone saying, "How did I get here? Well it certainly wasn't God whatever that word means".

Moreover, to Christians, God is Spirit, and the knowledge of God doesn't actually pertain to how we're here, but rather why we're here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Evidence?

Ok. Here:

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith. HarperCollins, 2004. [p. 488, footnote 8]

"The letters [of Paul] were also expurgated of elements [Marcion] thought were added by "Judaizing" Christians."
White also states that Marcion cut out a few portions of the Gospel of Luke; and it goes without saying that it's strange that Marcion didn't accept the book of Acts since it most likely was written by the same author who wrote Luke's Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Ok. Here:

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith. HarperCollins, 2004. [p. 488, footnote 8]

"The letters [of Paul] were also expurgated of elements [Marcion] thought were added by "Judaizing" Christians."
White also states that Marcion cut out a few portions of the Gospel of Luke; and it goes without saying that it's strange that Marcion didn't take on the book of Acts since it most likely was written by the same author as that of Luke's Gospel.

Gotcha, fair enough.

However, that's not much different than the modern bible which we know has edits both in the form of additions and deletions from earlier versions, and many of the Pauline epistles were written by forgers posing as Paul.

Even during the time the epistles were being written, we know there were people forging and editing texts or entire letters. He even alludes to people writing forged letters in 2 Thessalonians, which is ironic because that letter in itself is likely forged.

So, if Marcion was eliminating edits to original letters, hes fine. If he was editing in order to make them fit his theology (which is probably more likely), then that's not good. However, that was also par for the course for virtually all Christian sects of the day, and for long after.
 
Upvote 0