I don’t really know what to do with the next several sections. My initial thought was to ignore them, since there are no arguments in them, but I have decided to lump several of them into a group and at least comment on them. Since these sections are not in the same format as the previous ones, my response will also be somewhat different.
A brief summary of the content of these sections (the rest in chapter 2 if you are following along) is that Jesus died on the cross and suffered. According to Keller this means that God must love us, and the reason for suffering is not that God is just being mean, since he came down and suffered with and for us. Keller then goes on to speak of heaven, and how it will be so glorious as to undo all suffering, and that heaven will actually be better because of all the suffering. He gives as a comparison the increased appreciation and pleasure in a treasured object after it is recovered from being thought lost forever.
I know it might seem like it to some readers, but there are actually no arguments for the existence of god in any of these sections. So I have nothing strictly on topic to say. I will try to follow Keller a bit, though, in case anyone is interested.
Keller, in these sections, assumes the existence of God (that’s why there’s no argument) and then makes several other large claims, and provides no evidence. He claims that Jesus existed, was the son of God (and also God), and that he died and was resurrected. He uses these assertions to claim that God loves us, but since the assertions are baseless, so are claims built on them. He also claims that there is a life after death, and that in at least one form it is so perfect as to undo all earthly suffering. All of this can safely be ignored, since they are just assertions without backing.
There is a tenuous connection to our previous arguments about suffering, when Keller asserts that heaven will make all the suffering worth it, which could be interpreted as a reason for suffering. First, this is a terrible argument because it rests on the assumption that heaven exists, which has not been established, to say the least. Second, this is actually a simple reworking of the original argument, that suffering is good for us, since it makes existence after the suffering better. I’ll remind you of my argument against this, which is that God can do anything, which would include making existence exactly as good as he wants regardless of previous suffering, thus rendering the suffering unnecessary.
I don’t feel like I am really qualified or interested enough to argue here about the internal logical inconsistencies of the biblical Jesus myth. All I will say is that, at least to my reading, there are many.
I also feel that I should point out, just in case, that the bible, and all the stories in it, are not evidence of god. The authority of the bible as a reliable source rests on the existence of god, so it is circular to then use the bible as evidence for god. Put another way, if there is no god, then the bible is just an old book like any other, so why would you believe everything it says?