(Part 3) Best christian church history books according to redditors
We found 3,880 Reddit comments discussing the best christian church history books. We ranked the 1,095 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
Short Answer: Truthfully, we are not sure at all. We are actually pretty unsure of where/how the historical Jesus was executed and what happened after his death.
Long answer: In order to answer your specific question, we need to ask, if Jesus was crucified, what happened to his body? And, what do we historically know about the sequence of events that happened after his death.
This has been the subject of historiographical debates over the last two decades. Consensus wise, most Early Christian historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth was most likely executed by the state, and because the Roman state's typical form for punishment was crucifixion, this is most likely what happened to him. The area near Golgotha is a place known to have done execution, but so were other areas around Jerusalem.
Many historians lean on the side of John Dominic Crossan who has argued that in all likelihood he was executed and thrown into a mass grave. This is outlined in Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee and I think it was
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish PeasantJohn Dominic Crossan's “The Dogs Beneath the Cross,” chap. 6 in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. The reason for our uncertainty is that secondary characters of antiquity are increasingly difficult to find out key aspects of their life, especially when their biographers were not witnesses and lived decades after the character's death.Your question about the Tomb is even more difficult because the story as described in the Gospels is troublesome. None of them pass our tests for historical certainty, including the Criterion of dissimilarity and Criterion of multiple attestation. What do I mean by this? The stories don't actually match up. This is a problem for historians since every single resurrection narrative are completely different. A good example can be found if you ask what did they find at the tomb the morning of the third day? In Mark 16:5 it's One Young Man in Matthew 28:5 it's One Angel, in Luke 24:4 it's Two men, in John 20:12 - they don't find anyone there the first time they visit the tomb. This goes for every other detail in these narratives. Historians like Crossan and Ehrman both have also argued that the purpose of Roman Execution was to desecrate the body of the person being punished, thus allowing it it a burial in a tomb is highly unlikely (but not implausible).
So about that church in particular, no, the likelihood that he was executed and buried near that church is unlikely because we know nothing reliable about his death. It was picked up as the cites of both places for non historical reasons in the 4th century.
Edit: corrected a book title.
There is a long history of Christianity in China going back to at least the 7th Century and a long history of the Chinese rulers trying to control and/or wipe it out. The Nestorian Stele was erected in 8th century to celebrate the origins of Christianity there. Over the intervening centuries, Christianity has waxed and waned at various points.
The first missionary we have record of Alopen who was a missionary from the Church of the East (sometimes called the Nestorian Church) which at the time was based out of Ctesiphon in the Persian Empire and later under the Islamic Umayyad and Abbasid states. Unfortunately, despite having much success, they were dependent upon the good will and tolerance of the Tang dynasty (618–907) which was remarkably open and accepting of outside influences. After the Tang fell, the Christians were driven out and suppressed by the Tang's successors who were not as tolerant of outside ideas and the foreign missionaries that spread it.
Later, under the Yuan (Mongolian) Dynasty there was another flowering for about 2 centuries. The Mongols were very tolerant of non-Chinese ideas (obviously) and many leading Mongols or their wives were Christians. By the 13th century, western Christians began to arrive. Estimates are hard to come by for numbers but there were enough worshipers that the Church of the East had multiple Metropolitans and Bishops in numerous cities. However, with the collapse of the Yuan and the rise of the Ming Dynasty, Christianity was again banned by the government. Nevertheless, there were still some pockets of Christians and the Ming tolerated certain western Christian because they served as excellent advisers and a few prominent court officials were Christian at this point. There were enough native Christians in China, however, to lead to a debate in the Church, The Rites Controversy that was over the toleration of ancestor worship by Catholic leaders.
There were, over the centuries, short period (1-2 centuries) where there were conversions and growth under a tolerant ruler only to be inevitably followed by a period repression and proscription. There were edicts forbidding Christian worship (just as there were, at one time, many Chinese rulers who opposed Buddhism). Even with these more widespread religions, there were attempts to control them and the various dynasties decreed "acceptable" forms of Buddhism.
I highly recommend Samuel Moffats, "A History of Christianity in Asia." Very scholarly and detailed (its 2 volumes).
At the risk of a flood of down votes... you're wrong. I can't defend any Christian who uses the Old Testament to condemn homosexuality, since OT references seem to be referring to laws of a theocratic Jewish state which are abrogated by Jesus' teaching (that's why Christians never worried about wearing mixed fabrics or killing sassy children, even in the early days of the Church). Shame on anyone who tries to resurrect these verses to condemn homosexuality now; the criticism they receive is just.
However, the New Testament rejection of homosexuality is direct, encompassing, and clear.
The three most important scholarly English-Language studies of Romans in the last century have been by Robert Jewett, CEB Cranfield (Volume 1), (Volume 2), and James D.G. Dunn (Volume 1), (Volume 2). Of these, Jewett probably writes from what could be considered to be a "secular" perspective, the other two are objectively worded, but are more religiously oriented. None of these studies minces any words about Paul's intent in condemning homosexuality.
Commenting on Paul's inclusion of lesbians in the condemnation of homosexuality, Jewett writes that the verses in Romans 1 are "a negative judgement" on "women's homoeroticism... [not] women engaging in oral or anal intercourse with males" (176). While Jewett clearly frowns on such an "old fashioned" idea, he writes "there is no mistaking that... Paul... is convinced that heterosexuality was part of the divinely created order for human kind.. the evidence in this verse is particularly damaging to the hypothesis that the critique of homosexuality in this periscope aims solely to attack pederasty and thus has no bearing on homo erotic relationships between adults." (pp. 177). Of verse 1:27, he writes (again with a disproving tone towards Paul's old-fashioned morals), "Paul simply follows the line of his Jewish cultural tradition by construing the entire realm of homosexual relations as evidence that the divine wrath was active therein" (pp. 179). So Jewett, in the most important single work on Romans in the 21st century, sees Paul's morality as antiquated, old fashioned, and of little value, but has no doubt that he is talking about real homosexual relationships, not rape.
I won't waste space quoting the other two, but they both follow suit on this verse: there is no way Paul could be talking about pederasts, rapists, or anything other than consensual adult homosexuals.
As to Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in 1st Corinthians, Hans Conzelmann, a German scholar who is very liberal, writes "[Paul is talking here about]... both passive and active homosexuality. The Jewish [=Paul's] view on the latter is unequivocal: Do not have illicit intercourse or arouse passion for another male, a quote from an extra-biblical Jewish author (pp. 106)."
Also, the BDAG Lexicon, which is the official, alpha-and-omega of New Testament Greek, has this to say about the translation of the world usually rendered "homosexuals:" "'Male prostitutes' (New Revised Standard Version) is too narrow a rendering; 'sexual pervert' is too broad." (BDAG, pp. 631)
TL;DR: The belief that Paul is talking about anything other than adult-adult consensual homosexual relationships is the New Testament scholarship equivalent of Young Earth Creationism. Writers like Bart Ehrman, though widely read in pop-media, are regarded as clowns by professional societies like SBL.
Just an FYI that Ehrman has a new book out today: How Jesus Became God
Remember that one time that Notre Dame (Four Horseman included) had fought the KKK?
No? Here’s a book
If you want a book debunking the anti-Catholic myths about history of the Church. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History is one for you. It's written by an agnostic who hates bad history. And also How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, although he is Catholic, it's still informative. And there's The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History) by Thomas Madden, again an agnostic who refutes the baseless claim against the Crusade.
You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?
It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:
Colin Howson – Objecting to God
George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God
Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods
Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God
Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science
J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism
J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt
Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism
Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God
Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God
Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism
Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion
Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil
[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)
Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted
Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus
Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?
Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels
John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary
John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Karen Armstrong – A History of God
Mark Smith – The Early History of God
Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?
Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?
Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age
Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus
Right Wing American Christianity is nothing about any ideals. It is dangerous xenophobia and jingoism, it is the hang-over from McCarthy and Reagan.
Look at the ethos of The Family.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for people with a Western Post-Enlightenment worldview to simply interpret what Pre-Modern Hellenistic Jews were writing, especially if unaware of the context.
I was supplying interpretations from biblical scholars and showing that there are multiple ways that people understand Jesus' divinity. I wasn't making any value statements that they are better or even exclusive of one another. These are just the ways that people read the text.
Edit: If you want to read some biblical scholars and their interpretations of what Jesus meant by claiming divinity.
[N.T. Wright- Jesus and the Victory of God] (http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Christian-Origins-Question-Volume/dp/0800626826)
[Marcus Borg- Jesus: A New Vision] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Vision-Spirit-Culture-Discipleship/dp/0060608145)
[Richard Bauckham- Jesus and the God of Israel] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Israel-Testaments-Christology/dp/0802845592)
[John Dominic Crossan- Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography] (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Revolutionary-John-Dominic-Crossan/dp/006180035X)
[Reza Aslan- Zealot] (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/0812981480) Edit 2: Apparently his credentials are in some dispute and this particular book is pretty "pop theology" but I found this [post] (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/08/two-scholars-respond-to-the-actual-content-of-reza-aslans-take-on-jesus/) by a theologian I respect that gives some insight into the whole thing.
[Thomas J.J. Altizer- Contemporary Jesus] (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1876258.Contemporary_Jesus)
The unfortunately-titled book, Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart, is a pretty direct refutation of some of the New Atheist tropes.
For a somewhat more difficult read, his latest book, The Experience of God, takes on some of the more metaphysical misunderstandings that New Atheists (and many theists) make about what God actually is.
For a much easier and shorter summary, in a sense, of The Experience of God, take a look at DBH's article in First Things, God, Gods, and Fairies which covers similar ground in a much more introductory way (and has the benefit of being freely available).
good book on "The Family"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/0060559799
The rules about sex would actually be quite a minor part of it, really.
A detailed study of the early high middle ages gets you close to a pretty Catholic society - you may want to read Those Terrible Middle Ages.
You ask excellent questions. Other excellent questions:
There are several very famous Catholic apologists who converted after reading about Church history and reading the works of the Church Fathers. Peter Kreeft is one such person. Scott Hahn is another (although his main impetus was finding Catholic doctrines in scripture rather than from reading the fathers).
There is a book called "Surprised by Truth" edited by Patrick Madrid which features the stories of 11 or so evangelicals who became Catholics and several of them had reading the fathers as a turning point.
Jimmy Akin has a book called The Fathers know best which could be a very good introduction (I haven't read but I very much appreciate Jimmy Akin's apologetic efforts, he has a very gentle and patient persona with a thorough and systematic approach).
Pope Benedict XVI spent a few years of his papacy talking about a different church father every Wednesday and he walked his way through all the major fathers from the late 1st century (Clement of Rome) to the 12th century (Peter Lombard). Ignatius Press has compiled all these talks into two volumes. Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine and Church Fathers and Teachers: From Saint Leo the Great to Peter Lombard.
I have read Benedict's introductions to the fathers and I enjoyed them immensely. He doesn't supply many quotations from them but he does give you an overview of their life and times, the focus of their theological works, and the significance of their works for us today. I profited a lot from reading them.
There is a work called The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the face of God by Robert Louis Wilken which is also a very useful overview of Christian theology in the first 7 centuries. His focus is less on the individual personalities of the fathers but more on the current of their thought and the intellectual climate that it was developing in. He covers liturgy, doctrinal development, Christology, faith and reason, interpretation of scripture, moral theology, arts and literature and a bunch of other stuff if I remember rightly. I profited from this book even more than the Pope Benedict ones I reckon.
Any of these:
Or:
I had a graduate course on the history of pre-1500 Christianity outside of the Roman Empire. We relied pretty heavily on this text:
Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. 1, The Beginnings to 1500.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Asia-Beginnings-1500/dp/1570751625
It's scholarly and probably what you are looking for.
So you've read Sharlet's book then? If not, do so.
> On a systemic level, in the USA, have white people experienced racism?
All white people are the same? Catholics, Muslims, or Jews? What about Poles, Irish, or Italians? Do you think all these differing groups were just collectively welcomed and embraced? That they didn't face similar issues that people of color face today? Are you that naive and ignorant? Hell it was a big deal that there were no Protestants on the Supreme Court recently or that Al Smith ran for President in the 20s. Go read some of the Founding Father's views on Catholics or "papists" as they were known as. Here is a book for you maybe to inform you a bit about discrimination and issues that whites had to deal with. Whites certainly faced plenty of issues and to gloss over it and ignore these differences is ignorance at it's finest. Plenty of 'white' people absolutely faced similar problems. Have those problems lessened over time as the 'melting pot' erased some of these differences, yes, but a statement like you made is wholly ignorant and offensive. I'm not here to compare who has had it worse the Irish or the Blacks. The whites or browns. But you demonstrate a complete lack of empathy and knowledge of history. If we're ever to overcome these differences (like many white immigrant ethnic groups somewhat have), then we need to stop arguing semantics and getting into a victim pissing contest and work towards treating all of our fellow humans equally and with respect.
Edit: syntax
Not so much "hiding" history, as if Protestants were keeping it from me on purpose, but definitely there was a willful ignorance of tradition and history in every church I ever attended. In fact one of the big things that got me started on my road to Catholicism after 40 years as a Protestant was reading Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language. I read through this book and was discovering all this rich history and tradition and I began to wonder what happened to us (Protestants) that we'd think it was OK to just ignore all this and settle for what we had.
We ought to be celebrating this history, I thought, and instead it was as if each congregation I attended throughout my life believed that they were the very first Christians to ever exist. It really hit me when, right after I finished this book, the pastor of the church I was attending (I think it was a non-denom "community church") wanted the church to celebrate Holy Week with special services throughout the Triduum (although he didn't call it that). Two-thirds of the church asked "What's holy week?" and the other third almost split off because it was "too Catholic".
I learned a lot of good things from my time as a Protestant but willful ignorance of tradition, or retconning tradition to make it support the Reformation, was not one of them.
Check out a book called The End of Biblical Studies. In it, the author suggest that biblical studies should largely be abandoned because the credibility of the Bible has been so thoroughly destroyed, and the only folks who are still arguing for the Bible's relevancy are the religious conservatives who really, really want it to be true.
> Besides, Christians in those places were actually pretty well tolerated by muslims, save for a religious tax on them.
This is not corroborated by primary sources.
This is the ultimate book of church history. I highly recommend it, it's lengthy but well worth the time investment.
I recommend Dr. Thomas Madden's Book.
[Amazon Link Here] (http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Crusades-Critical-International/dp/0742538230)
He takes the Crusades and is able to explain the reasoning behind them, the faults that occurred and why, and makes it enjoyable to read.
I highly recommend reading the Apostolic Fathers. These were people who either knew the Apostles or were just a generation offset from them (abt 70AD - 150AD). The things they say are amazing and show the rich diversity of thought among some of the earliest Christians. Michael Holmes has a really nice, inexpensive translation into English with introductory notes on each book that explain the authors, dates, occasion for writing, etc.
Since I'm not taking classes this semester, I'm taking the time to read several books:
Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary by Matthew Barrett
The Apostolic Fathers in English along with Reading the Apostolic Fathers
Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie
Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective by Phillip Griffiths
Philosophy for Understanding Theology by Allen and Springsted
The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy by Cowen and Spiegel
And Wheelock's Latin
I'm already into Reformation Theology and the Apostolic Fathers. I highly recommend both books, but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the Apostolic Fathers. I've learned so much about the Early Church and its diversity of beliefs and practices. These were works by people who knew and studied under the Apostles themselves.
I have a book called Church History in Plain Language (Bruce L. Shelley) that is pretty good. Link
From what I've read the Crusades initially began as a delayed response to several centuries of Muslim conquest over Christian states. Unfortunately there is a knowledge gap between scholars and the everyday man-on-the-streets. The typical layperson sees the Crusades as an unprovoked response over peaceful Islam. This is a very uninformed view of the Crusades. The Muslim campaigns had been sacking Christians territories for hundreds of years, destroying many churches along the way (including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem). Many of the indigenous Christians in Muslim-conquered territories were subject to harsh harassment and persecution, constantly being pressured into conversion. Jews likewise suffered similar persecution.
Here are some resources to further your understanding on the Crusades:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-weidenkopf/were-the-crusades-just-wars
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Crusades-Critical-International/dp/0742538230
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thomas F Madden is the leading scholar on the Crusades. He was contacted after 9/11 to address whether or not Islamic terrorism was historically connected to the Crusades. He dispels many of the "Crusade myths" that are shamelessly repeated in our society.
Not all, but many. Read Hector Avalos's The End of Biblical Studies. There are several who don't, but even among those who do start with that position their public beliefs are often quite different from their academic beliefs.
There is NO contemporary evidence (outside the bible) that this Jesus character even existed. Between the apparent "death" of Jesus until Saul of Tarsus' (aka Paul the apostle) Damascus road vision there is no record of Christianity at all. It was Paul that kicked off Christianity. Here is some recommended reading
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330464426&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408070120&sr=1-1&keywords=Nailed
http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation-ebook/dp/B00DB39V2Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1403984728
According to what Bush told Chirac we were hunting the devils Gog and Magog. Besides, the U.S. is not nor ever has been the Catholic Church.
If you want to keep telling yourself that religion is or ever has been a-political, that is your choice. Your beliefs affect your behavior, and that is still true for all politicians and generals.
Check out a book called The Family by Jeff Sharlet.
There's a bunch of other gospels, including a Gospel of Jesus. This book explains them pretty well.
When it comes to the early Church fathers, reading the documents directly can be instructive. They are a pretty easy read (except Hermas...)
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0801031087/
Add that to the Apology of Justin Martyr, and you've got the most important documents from the first 150 years.
I'm reading:
Church History in Plain Language
A General introduction To the Bible
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
And I really learned a lot from William Lane Craig's Defenders Podcast. Over several years he covered the major topics of Christian doctrine in depth. The best part is the Q&A time at the end of the class.
First of all, can I just say how much I love giving and receiving book recommendations? I was a religious studies major in college (and was even a T.A. in the World Religions class) so, this is right up my alley. So, I'm just going to take a seat in front of my book cases...
General:
Christianity:
Judaism:
Islam:
Buddhism:
Taoism:
Atheism:
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Personal research, mostly. I'm a big history nerd with a slant toward religion and other macabre subject matter. I'm actually not as well read as I'd like to be on these subjects, and I basically blend different sources into a knowledge smoothie and pour it out onto a page and see what works for me and what doesn't.
I'll list a few books I've read that I enjoyed. There are certainly more here and there, but these are the "big ones" I was citing when writing all the comments in this thread. I typically know more about Christianity than the other major faiths because of the culture around me.
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years - Diarmaid MacCulloch
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong
The next two balance each other out quite well. Hardline anti-theism contrasted with "You know, maybe we can make this work".
The Case for God - Karen Armstrong
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Lately, I have been reading the Stoics, which like Buddhism, I find to be one of the more personally palatable philosophies of mind I have come across, although I find rational contemplation a bit more accessible to my Westernized nature.
Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters - Translated by Moses Hadas
Discourses and Selected Writings (of Epictetus) - Translated by Robert Dobbin
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Translated by George Long
I'm still waiting on Fed Ex to deliver this one:
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine
Also, if you're into history in general, a nice primer for what sorts of things to dive into when poking around history is this fun series on YouTube. I usually watch a video then spend a while reading more in depth about whatever subject is covered that week in order to fill the gaps. Plus, John and Hank are super awesome. The writing is superb and I think, most importantly, he presents an overall argument for why studying history is so important because of its relevance to current events.
Crash Course: World History - John Green
Recommended Reading:
The Apostolic Fathers by Michael Holmes is what you want. It contains all of the earliest extra-Biblical writings. The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. It's all in there. There are two versions. The one I have has Greek on one page with the English translation on the facing page. If you know (or have aspirations of learning) a little Greek, get that one. Otherwise there is also a English only version..
No Kindle edition that I can see. If "free on kindle" is important, you can get Lightfoot's translation for free from CCEL. PDF and plaintext only, but calibre can solve that. The Holmes edition is in my opinion much superior, but free is free.
CCEL also has Schaff's Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. That will give you more than you'll ever want to read.
Paging /u/tbown for more recommendations.
Generally histories:
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
Chadwick - The Early Church
Retrieving Nicaea
Specific Important Authors
Apostolic Fathers
Origen Note: Not everything he said is orthodox, but he was an extremely important figure.
Desert Fathers
Athanasius - On the Incarnation
Basil - On the Holy Spirit
Gregory of Nazianzus
John Chrysostom
Augustine - Confessions
Rule of St. Benedict
Gregory the Great
Maximus the Confessor
John Damascus
Everyone wants to lay claim to the church fathers, no doubt. I absolutely love this question, as it was the one that I thought would solve my spiritual questions in college. I'm more qualified to comment on the development of theology, but i can at least get an answer started here.
​
> . Would they have done so in a manner similar to Catholicism or Protestantism? Or were they completely different from either group?
The biggest thing here to realize is that the church fathers didn't deal with the same questions later/modern roman Catholicism did/does, and definitely not with the issues of Protestantism. Most of the time, theology is a reflective practice, done when an issue arises. So if you really want to get a feel for the early fathers, it would be best to dig into their works. The earliest you could get in touch with is the apostolic fathers. Your statement above would lead me to believe you are at least familiar with this material, but you get a good sense of interpretation there. Most people would find the Apostolic fathers to be concerned with Christian living. The question at hand isn't doctrine but rather what makes Christians Christian?
​
The interpretative work of the apostolic fathers is different from even the early fathers. John Chrysostom is probably the most often referred to, as his sermons are written down and widely available on the internet in English even. And yet, it is easy to see how vastly different he is from Arius, Nestorius, Flavian or even Eusebius when you read their commentary. John is highly allegorical in his preaching and interpretation. You see all these mean starting to actually delve into what we would consider dogmatic principles. After all, Arius and Nestorius start to fool around with incarnational theology, and the christian churches finally realize that they need to think about what they actually believe, which affects interpretation of scripture, and lead to Nicaea.
​
In reality, all modern Christian interpretation builds on top of the foundational work of the fathers. It isn't until the counter and radical reformations that the fathers become obscured in mainline orthodoxy. The question of the day at the reformation is exactly how the atonement works in the life of the believer, and that is why it becomes a theological question. Really, before then, it isn't even questioned that baptism and participation are the keys to heaven. The simony prevalent at the time of the reformation is what thrusts the question into the discussion of the church.
​
This way of interpretation and doing theology haven't really changed either, we experience it in the present day, pondering the questions on ecumenism, women's ordination, and the wave of questions out of the gender/identity movement.
​
To sum up what I am driving at: no one interprets like the fathers did, because the questions are different. Many church bodies love to claim the fathers, but the fact of the matter is simply that each body has built on top of their work, in their own way.
​
During the Ottoman siege of Malta the Knights of St John used both the early version of muskets and crossbows. The crossbows came in handy when rain made it impossible to use gunpowder. This was during the mid 16th century, however they were outdated at the time and used only in desperation.
Empires of the Seas is an excellent book on a transitional period between musket and older weapons. It was also during this time a lot of castles were being converted into more gunpowder defensive forts.
http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645
I have a book you'd enjoy, fellow Catholic.
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Religion-Became-Nation-Heretics/dp/143917833X
>What are some good resources to learn more about our faith
Learn some history. Modern History and Not so Modern history.
Also, anything by father barron. He has some great movie reviews: https://www.youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo
The murderous inquisitions, according to David Bentley Hart in Atheist Delusions, are better understood as the State trying to usurp the Church. They are the first cries of secular Modernism, not the natural conclusion of the Papacy.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
>how I could learn more about church tradition. About the patristic era and everything that was taught. I feel like if I learn about it, I'll be able to judge it for myself.
There are many excellent introductions to this era:
I don't mean to overwhelm you with sources, but the point is that if you want to learn more there is a lot available to you!
Maybe you could ask your clergy to dialogue with you and study as well.
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch is a pretty good read (so far, about 1/3 of the way through). It's a recent work, covers a lot of aspects of church history, seems pretty balanced, and is giving me plenty of questions for further reflection and study.
It's a cool story, it goes all the way back to the crusades. After the Ottomans finally destroyed the last remnants of the Roman empire in Constantinople, they set out to dominate what they considered the 'center of the world', the Mediterranean. Besides coastal nations like Italy and Spain, this meant a handful of islands protected by remnant knight orders from the crusades. They fought this war both by fleets constructed by the turks, and by funding north African corsairs to harangue the European shipping trade.
This culminated in a centuries long war. The remnants of that naval era were finally erradicated by the fledgling united states navy more than 200 years later.
Some great historical reading for those who may be interested: Notre Dame Vs. The Klan, by Todd Tucker.
Description:
>The riveting tale of the clash of two powerful institutions Notre Dame and the Klu Klux Klan that changed both institutions and America forever.
>In 1924, students of the University of Notre Dame and members of the Ku Klux Klan faced off in a violent confrontation in South Bend, Indiana. This shocking and true hidden chapter in Catholic and American history is recounted in Notre Dame vs. The Klan, the story of two uniquely American institutions that rose to power amdist rampant anti-Catholicism and collided druing a riotous weekend.
Rodney Stark's Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History.
From the intro:
>Finally, I am not a Roman Catholic, and I did not write this book in defense of the Church. I wrote it in defense of history.
For the middle ages, Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths is really good.
Here's an entertaining discussion by an atheist I came across http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/
http://populscience.blogspot.com/2016/09/myth-dark-ages.html?m=1
Plenty of good books https://www.amazon.com/Those-Terrible-Middle-Ages-Debunking/dp/0898707811
Absolutely. I say this because I made the same mistake as you did. I went to this website in the eighth grade curious about Christianity, and it among other things kept me an agnostic for four more years; thankfully, I met someone who corrected my misinformed views and then was confirmed into the Catholic Church my senior year of high school.
I would recommend a few books that ought to give you a better understanding of Christianity.
Whatever other specific questions about the faith, I would be more than happy to answer them. /r/catholicism is a great resource for a conservative and intellectually rigorous approach to the religion, but I do not want to demonstrate my biases too much.
The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power i'm reading it right now. this guy can really write; it's very entertaining and informative. highly referenced with both good, clear notes and footnotes.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/25/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-jeff-sharlet-the-family-the-secret-fundamentalism-at-the-heart-of-american-power/
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060559799
For a first step into biblical study, I'm not sure I would only read Carrier's book. As I haven't read it fully, I can't really comment on it like /u/koine_lingua.
But if you want to get a broad spectrum, you can check out:
John Meier Marginal Jew - (maybe vol. 2 or 3)
NT Wright's How God Became King
John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Marcus Borg Jesus: An uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary
Craig Blomberg Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
You can take a stab at Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus
or Raymond E. Brown's Death of the Messiah or Birth of the Messiah if you want. I found Schweitzer's book difficult to get through. And one Easter holiday my plans were to read Death of the Messiah. After page like 17, I quit and played WoW.
That will give you a healthy dose of different perspectives - and will not only give you a survey of the scholarship but also will argue for a model, as opposed to Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus which just criticizes one aspect of HJ studies.
Overall, I like what you have to say I just wish you were saying it better. There's a journal article coming out sometime either this year or next that is similar to yours. I believe it's the Journal of Biblical Literature, but I'm not certain. If you're interested I'll double check. The author has a similar dislike for N.T. Wright and R.T. France's understanding of the passage, but goes in a bit of a different direction. The biggest thing is that he appeals to the Hebrew Bible to explain 'generation', and uses solid evidence to link this passage to the Hebrew Bible.
I'd just like to say, good job on dealing with a difficult passage. Have a good one.
My Logos Bible software gives καίπερ in the NT in 5 instances, namely Philippians 3:4, Hebrews 5:8, 7:5 and 12:17, and 2 Peter 1:12. All of the instances of καίπερ are translated with though or although. Especially 12:17 seems to indicate that you cannot translate it with "because":
> "17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. "
>
>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 12:17.
It cannot be that he was rejected "because" he sought it with tears. Jesus offered up prayers and supplications with tears in 5:7, and he is not rejected because of it. Rather, his reverence gets noticed.
BDAG ( https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bdag&qid=1571748897&sr=8-1 ) only lists "although" as a translation, and has many verses to back it up
>καίπερ conj. (since Od. 7, 224; SIG 709, 18; 1108, 8; PGiss 47, 22; PSI 298, 17; LXX, TestJos, Joseph., Just.) although w. ptc. (so usu., also Diod S 8, 9, 2; 10, 19, 2; 17, 114, 1; Wsd 11:9; Jos., Ant. 1, 319; 3, 280; TestJos 10:5; w. finite verb Just., A I, 4, 4) Phil 3:4; Hb 5:8; 7:5; 12:17; 2 Pt 1:12. Also 1 Cl 7:7; 16:2; ISm 3:3; MPol 17:1; Hv 3, 2, 9; Hs 8, 6, 4; 8, 11, 1 (B-D-F §425, 1; Rob. 1129; FScheidweiler, καίπερ nebst e. Exkurs zum Hb: Her 83, ’55, 220–30).—M-M.
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 497.
What may help in the interpretation is if you look at "son" as a spiritual being rather than as a literal child. I don't know if you're aware of Michael Heiser's work on spiritual beings (https://youtu.be/pKPid4i4SmI)(his book The Unseen Realm, his podcast or his videos) but according to him, sons (of God) are a type of spiritual being like angels, demons, God's heavenly host, etc.
The interpretation then becomes: "Even though Jesus was in a high position, maybe undeserving or generally unaffected by suffering because of him being a son of God, he learned obedience through what he suffered." Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God created the world through His Son, so it may be a little strange that this very son with God learns obedience by suffering.
This may fit because in the previous verse, 5:7, Hebrews talks about "in the days of his flesh". This is then contrasted with his spiritual status as son in verse 8 if you accept my speculation.
​
I think "because" is not a fitting translation. I understand why you're puzzled by the formulation and I find it a bit difficult to explain my ideas around Christ's sonship without me sounding a little wacky.
A bookstore owner who is Orthodox told someone I know this is a good book :https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Early-Christian-Thought-Seeking/dp/0300105983
I have not read the book, but a response was made particularly to this very book from Ehrman by some Christian scholars.
How God Became Jesus
Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your interest and hope that you find the answers to your questions. If not, there's plenty of people on this sub that would be happy to help.
In terms of shedding light, there are a number of non-canonical accounts of Jesus, even early ones that were not included into the canon. Many give vastly different accounts of Jesus' nature and teachings, which ultimately is one of the reasons they became rejected, along with dating of when they were written, who by, integrity of the teachings, etc. I think the Didache is a little misrepresented though, many of our early Church fathers were not only aware of it, but clearly reference it.
Ultimately, though our early accounts of Jesus do offer a divine incarnation from the get go, our earliest Gospel, Mark includes many such references as do our earliest writings, the epistles of Paul, hence why the notion of Jesus as merely a human is widely rejected (though there some who self-identify as Christian and might accept a human-only Jesus, this wouldn't be considered orthodox though).
If looking into the historical evidence and various accounts of Jesus as human as well as further reading material you might be better poking your head into /r/AcademicBiblical. You could also look into the companion books How Jesus became God and How God became Jesus to get a good grasp for arguments on both sides.
Peace be upon you!
If you just started, skip the "Tripartite Tractate". It's hard to understand even for someone who has read a lot of other Gnostic books. Some good places to start reading and realize just how different a picture is painted on the Apostles and Jesus, I recommend reading the Gospel of Thomas first.
Elane Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels" is a wonderful primer to the NHL (and Gnostic Bible) and Gnostic thought altogether. Really easy to read, really well written. Here are some links:
https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532
https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Bible-Revised-Expanded/dp/1590306317
studying Gnosticism reintroduced me to Jung and lead me to start reading his works. He was deeply interested in the Gnostics and was able to make an in-depth study of them WITHOUT the dead sea scrolls or the nag hamadi index! unbelievable. One of the enduring lessons I've kept from The Gnostic Gospels, however, is the idea that religions initially developed their rules because they were essential to the basic operation of society due to the fact that the people were relatively unevolved and thus needed to be told what was good for them by a higher being. One of her examples is a law in the Torah that requires you to sweep out your food storage shed twice a year. Seems kind of a weird law to the modern observer but then we notice that the jewish community was the only one to avoid the plague, and then we see that sweeping out your food storage prevents rats and rats are the main carrier of plague. Now modern man doesn't need to be told to clean his home because God told him to but rather he understands its in his own well being to do so. This idea leads into an idea I conceive of as moral power. I use this often in arguments where my opponent is decrying the proliferation of technology or the internet or porn; and the basic idea is that when you basically have access to anything you want at any point in the day in this modern age than it DOES require moral power to not sit around getting drunk all day or doing drugs all day or looking at porn all day or becoming ADDICTED to any of a hundred things that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to become addicted to in the time of jesus. We continue to Evolve! So to try to bring it around WHILE Jung appreciated the Gnostics it seems through his writings that it was because of what they were able to accomplish during THEIR time, just like he was impressed with the alchemists but he WOULD NOT recommend a modern person emulate them...we have moved past them although the study of them is infinitly fulfilling.
Books! Indeed.
The Concise History of the Crusades is a good place to start for the crusades. This covers the Crusades really well from a narrative standpoint, and is a good starting place.
Likewise, Riley-Smith's What Were the Crusades is a great book about the crusades in general. It covers some of the narrative and mostly talks about the mentality of crusading
Riley-Smith and Madden are very skilled writers and both are pretty easy to read academic texts, so that's a plus.
For general information I use A Short History of the Middle Ages by Rosenwein I personally find it dry but it is very informative and it covers a lot of material.
Now as for the Early Middle Ages...although it does qualify as pop history (audible gasp!) I enjoyed Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels..which while not academic writing (which is not always a bad thing ) it is still pretty good. It covers the fall of the Roman Empire up till the Renaissance and spends more time on the Early Middle Ages then most books like it.
In chronological order of my reading them:
And for good measure, The Tao Te Ching (started reading it in high school...still reading it 37 years later), and The Open Society and It's Enemies.
Sure. The first thing I did was read the primary sources and pretty much in chronological order. I began with the Apostolic Fathers (Michael Holmes has this edition with Greek and English). I then read some 2nd century stuff, especially Irenaeus. Cyprian, Tertullian, etc, were all important. The fourth century took me forever to read through. I probably stayed in the 4th century for a year.
For secondary literature, I'd recommend, in no particular order:
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
J.N.D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines
Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Chadwick is my doctoral grandfather, so to speak)
Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon
Benedicta Ward's translation of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers
Less to do with Church history, but filling in some intellectual gaps:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion
Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (This may shock people that I recommend it, but I do like the nouvelle théologie every now and again)
I also welcome /u/koine_lingua to offer some of his own recommendations to give some balance if he'd like.
The Psalms. Normally I pray the Divine Office and get most of them in a month, but lately I've been going at it 150 a week.
Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World Entertaining read. I was a little perturbed that I only knew sketchy details about these two events, and so I decided to dig a little deeper.
Good pop history on the topic if anyone is interested.
Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0812977645/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469012691&sr=1-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=empires+of+the+sea&dpPl=1&dpID=51F8g7LmgBL&ref=plSrch
Read that book. The church saved Europe from Islam. Muslimes actually started what became the modern slave trade
There’s a decent book that was written if you’re interested in learning more. I read it a few years back. If I recall correctly, it started slow but was overall a good read. Apologize if this is mentioned in the podcast. At work and can’t listen at the moment. Not trying to be redundant.
Church history in Plain Language
There are also multiple college-level courses available free online (search iTunes). Here is one: http://www.biblicaltraining.org/church-history-1/gerald-bray
Here's some books I found useful when trying to understand this issue:
In my opinion, the best book on the topic is Ross Douthat's Bad Religion. It goes through the recent history of American Christianity, but does an especially good job describing Catholicism. Douthat is a columnist for the New York Times, and a faithful Catholic. He's one of the best reporters on the Church alive today.
If you want to hear from the left, check out Practicing Catholic by James Carroll. I know he's not super popular on this thread, but I think it's instructive to learn about how all relevant groups reacted to a historic event.
> Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
For those of us (like me) who are interested in some of the history, but have to have to look these things up:
While I'm on a diversion, if you're like me you wonder how there can be kings in the Roman empire - and what Rome is doing in Judea in the first place? Going off Samuel Hugh Moffett and Wikipedia:
Judea lay at the border with Rome's great enemy, Persia. In 53 BC Rome and Persia fought for the first time at Carrhae. Rome's invading soldiers, after being tired of marching through the desert were massacred by the superior Persian cavalry (read: heavily armoured horses attacking exhausted guys on foot from all sides). This marked the beginning of a seven hundred year war, off and on, between the Roman empire and Persia empire, which neither side eventually won.
Enter Augustus (yes, the same guy who ruled at Jesus birth - but not yet Emperor). He avenged Carrhae, and drove the Persians out of Judea (map)
, thoroughly defeating their armies into the Syrian desert. Instead of pushing on (which might have seen the Roman empire extend all the way to India) he was more cautious, and in 20 BC forced the humbled Phraates IV to accept a peace treaty. This was at the beginning of the so-called Pax Romana a period of relative, often uneasy, peace.
There was apparently three ways that Augustus ruled his newly conquered provinces. The first, prefered, was to set up client states - leaving a local king in charge. Herod the Great was one of these, and was later followed by his sons (who had to petition Rome to be allowed to rule). The other two types of provence were stable and unarmed senatorial provinces and frontier imperial provinces. If a client state became unruly, or didn't live up to expectation they quickly became an imperial province, under direct control Rome. That's what happened to most of Judea in 6AD when Augustus removed another of Herod the Great's sons and took direct control (map) of half of the province installed governors like Pilate.
Google is my friend :-)
Ultimately Western science only operates within a very specific set of philosophical assumptions. An intentional narrowing of parameters for the sake of understanding a particular part of creation in a particular way. But those philosophical assumptions are only justifiable within a Christian framework, and historically speaking, they only came about in the first place because of that framework.
EDIT: I should be more specific - a Catholic framework. Read a real history book, people.
EDIT 2: I know I'm going to get called out on this, so here are some history books which deal with Catholic engagement in science:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashinable-ebook/dp/B00D99NS4O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415805107&sr=8-1&keywords=atheist+delusions
A little first-thingsy (actually a lot, come to think of it), but he's blatantly trying to mimic the bombast of Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-Science-Greenwood-Guides-Religion-ebook/dp/B00352KPS2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415805209&sr=8-1&keywords=catholicism+and+science
http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-ebook/dp/B0030CVQ5I/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805286&sr=1-1&keywords=christianity+the+first+three+thousand+years
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Illustrated-History-Civilization-Architecture/dp/1844837173/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805312&sr=1-11&keywords=christianity+illustrated+history
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/1435129636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805358&sr=1-1&keywords=christianity+david+bentley+hart
DBH dials down the bitch in this book. I just remembered I have his pipe.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006Y35NEK?btkr=1
http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Reformation-Courses-Teaching/dp/B0016RNDC8/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805470&sr=1-4&keywords=brad+gregory
I recommend reading Bart Ehrman's new book that is dedicated to a topic very similar to this.
>Do you still see the Bible as authoritative?
Oh, god, no. Not in any sense other than "tradition." It's an anonymously pseudopigraphic cobbled-together quilt of racism, sexism, bigotry, and hatred.
>Do you believe in Jesus?
In a historical Jesus, maybe. In a Jesus that never called himself God.
The short answer is not much. What we know comes from critical analysis of the synoptic gospels, anthropological and archeological facts about the region that we can use to interpret those texts, and Roman writings from the time period, most importantly those of Jewish-Roman historian Josephus. There's a whole field of scholarship on the historical Jesus, and you should check out the work of the Jesus Seminar(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar).
I can recommend a couple books on the subject as well:
If you want the full monty, big ol' weighty tome, you need John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. -http://www.amazon.com/The-Historical-Jesus-Mediterranean-Peasant/dp/0060616296
For the shorter, more digestible version, see his book Jesus: A revolutionary Biography http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006180035X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0060616296&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1QHBK1Y6G36CNGSTPAZ7
For a counterpoint to many of Crossan's arguments, see Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Millenarian-Dale-Allison/dp/0800631447
New Testament Scholarship is a really interesting field and if you really want to answer the question you've asked here you should check out the work these historians/religious studies scholars have been doing in the last 20-30 years.
Do my research for me? I've already done my research, you should do yours.
Here's a good starting point.
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Revolutionary-John-Dominic-Crossan/dp/006180035X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EFZ7FB757V42YEK86HSA
Or if you're short on cash:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/historical-jesus/id384233911?mt=2
https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
First, remember that the time over which your dad can really force you to go isn't very long. It may seem long now, but really, it's not.
Religion is not about God... or at least, not only about God. Religion is a complex set of a variety of practices -- social structures, codes of behavior, rituals (personal and social), and others. Theology (including beliefs about God) is a way many participants think about these things, and many (in some religions, particularly Abrahamic religions), believe that that it is about, but I disagree.
These things (rituals etc.) can have profound psychological effects, both social and personal. They are neither inherently beneficial or destructive, but rather are tools that can be either depending on their use. Participation in such rituals as a child, or even young adult, lays a psychological foundation upon which later rutuals can work. Those old enough to understand what is going on (old enough to become an atheist by choice), can reframe them in your mind as you participate, and have some influence on how they influence you.
Just because you participate in a ritual doesn't mean you need to believe in the theology, any more than a musician needs to believe that scales and chords are fundamental theories of acoustics, or have supernatural powers, or were created by supernatural beings.
Consider Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny. The decorations, presents under a tree, baskets with brightly colored eggs, and other traditions are rituals, ostensibly about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. Even as adults, though, long after we stop believing in either, these rituals are important to many of us. The ritual is the key; the supernatural beings are just a motif. Most of these traditions are descended from pagan traditions with either entirely different or barely recognizable assiciate supernatural beings anyway.
More formally Christian rituals, such as Sunday morning church attendance, mass, confession, marriages, funerals, are no different. They may be not be as entertaining, fun, and light-hearted as Easter baskets and stockings over a fire, and are sometimes aimed at far more painful parts of the human condition, but they can be meaningful none the less.
Stoicism and Christianity have similarities and differences. Due to the similarities, Christians have been finding value in using Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus as inspirational material for centuries, selective adopting, rejecting, and ignoring different elements according to their own beliefs. There is no reason, I think, why a Stoic can't do the same while participating in Christian rituals such as sunday morning Church attendance. Just look for what you find value in, what seems correct to you, and focus your attention on that, reinterpret the experience. There is no need to tell anyone that's what you're doing. For the rest, there is no need to argue about it: just be a respectful spectator, and go your own way when you leave home. In other words, exercise patience, for now.
Instead of resisting it, try to get the most out of it you can. It may be helpful to deliberately draw correspondences between elements in Christianity and Stoic exercises. Indeed, there are some that think some elements of Christian practice originated in ancient philosophical exercise.
For example, the Stoic reverence toward the natural universe corresponds directly to the Christian reverence toward God. Christian exhortations to obedience to God's will have strong similarities to acceptance of externals and viewing things from a 3rd party perspective. Various restrictions on behavior can be used as Stoic exercises concerning voluntary self-denial. Focus on these things, think of God as something of gimmick or artistic motif if you need to.
Similarly, you may think what they teach you about Jesus is pretty crazy, but it isn't that hard to interpret Jesus as having been a near-Cynic but entirely human sage -- a Jew who attended some lectures by Cynics (which is entirely possible -- remember that Jesus lived under the Roman empire during a time when Cynicism was widespread across the empire) and adopted some of the Cynic teachings without entirely letting go of his Jewish beliefs, and whose teachings then got exaggerated, reinterpreted, and/or outright corrupted in the following centuries, and elements of his biography got merged with other mythological stories. (Some scholars believe this -- see this book for example.) Personally, I don't think enough evidence has survived that any conclusions one way or another are anything other than wild speculation, but that doesn't matter; considering exemplars ("contemplation of the sage") is a perfectly good Stoic exercise, and minor details like historical accuracy are not relevant: this is self-improvement, not history. Regarding him in this fashion may make you more comfortable with celebrating his life.
Now, the Stoics were not Cynics, but the later had a lot of influence on the former, and some Stoics (particularly Epictetus) regarded them as good role models. Diogenes in particular was sometimes held up as an example of someone who actually managed to become a sage.
edit: typos
This is generally considered the best NT lexicon: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331&ved=2ahUKEwjg-rnhk5TkAhUQIKwKHWL4BioQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2x1bV7P6oLho-Lu3Dn94Uv
It's pretty extensive. There is a shorter edition too if you're mostly wanting glosses, but if you're wanting to really dig in BDAG is the way to go.
I have seen people using the Brill dictionary lately too, but it's not specifically NT.
The grammar from what I can tell is really close but tends to be simpler in Koine so you probably wouldn't need a specifically NT grammar. Wallace's grammar would help with specific passages and constructions if you want one and his book is relatively inexpensive.
I didn't find exactly what I said in the previous comment, but here's the definitions of δικαιόω which I did find:
> 1. To take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause
2. To render a favorable verdict, vindicate
3. to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pretinent or valid, make free/pure
4. to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right
I think 3 and 4 are closest to what I was saying, but neither say exactly that.
Source, p249
The greek word is μοναὶ, which is the feminine plural nominative form of μονή, which is in turn the noun form of the verb "μένω" which means, "I dwell, remain, or abide"
So it just means "In my father's house, there are many dwellings/places to live."
The word mansion comes from the Latin word manere, which means "to remain or dwell", which borrows the term from the Greek.
So "mansions" is technically an accurate translation, but I don't think the word meant to evoke the idea that we get when we think of a mansion today.
Essentially Jesus is saying that there are many places for people to live in God's house, and Jesus is going to prepare places for them.
Sources: The BDAG (Offline Resource) for the Greek and Online Etymology Dictionary for the Latin.
I'm happy to interact with you about the Greek of this verse, as best I can. I am in my third semester of Greek studies for a Masters of Theology in seminary. As with most things, the more you study Greek the more you realize you don't know!
Fundamentally though, be aware that Christian scholarship works a lot like a hospital, in a sense. First, doctors, nurses, and technicians each have a core set of knowledge that they all share. Second, doctors have specialized knowledge that nurses and technicians lack, nurses have specialized knowledge that doctors and technicians lack, and so on and so on. Thirdly, the whole system relies on each person to trust in the specialized knowledge of the other people beside them.
In this way Christian scholarship is made up of many jobs, and for this topic we need a team of Language Experts, Theological Experts, and Exegetical Experts to form any serious conclusions! No one person can be an expert in all three, so we have to trust others to form a conclusion with any confidence.
Part of that means humbly admitting where we are unequipped and untrained to offer a dissenting opinion. You are very open with your lack of education in the Koine Greek, which is admirable! Please accept my loving challenge to rectify this situation over the next year of your life. You can buy Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek textbook and workbook for fairly cheap, and if you commit yourself to a chapter a week than you can acquire a surprisingly adequate understanding of the language in just 8 or 9 months! You obviously have a passion for the knowledge and the ability to pursue truth, so level-up your skills!
Back to Matthew 23:23...
>However, it appears that ἐκεῖνος is not exclusively reserved for what is far, the more distant object. All the examples I gave in my article (Matthew 15:18, Mark 12:4, John 7:29, Acts 5:37, 2 Timothy 2:12) use κἀκεῖνος (not ταῦτα) but they are clearly referring to what was near. I wonder why they did not use ταῦτα instead.
Let's look at each one of those examples, and I suspect we will see ways that English and Greek are similar, and also ways they differ. I'll be using ESV for english. But first!! Let's get some good lexicon information on εκεινος and τουτο. From BDAG
ἐκεῖνος, η, ο demonstr. pron. (Hom.+) pert. to an entity mentioned or understood and viewed as relatively remote in the discourse setting, that person, that thing, that (‘that over there’; opp. οὗτος ‘this’)
οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο (Hom.+) demonstrative pron., used as adj. and subst. As subst., the person or thing comparatively near at hand in the discourse material, this, this one (contrast ἐκεῖνος referring to someth. comparatively farther away; cp. Lk 18:14; Js 4:15; Hm 3:5)
>Matt. 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this [κακεινος] defiles a person.
κακεινος is actually a bit troublesome for me to research. Most lexicons have it thrown in with και which is a multi-function conjunction, so finding good information there is like finding a needle in a hay stack. The most helpful thing I've found is
>κἀκεῖνος (kakeinos), and. A compound of ἐκεῖ and καί. From The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (Logos Bible Software, 2011).
εκει is of course the shortened form of εκεινος, which gets us back to BDAG's lexical help which I already pasted.
So why does Matt 15:18 have κακεινος translated as "and this" instead of "and that?" BDAG tells us that εκεινος has a secondary usage, "referring back to and resuming a word immediately preceding. Often weakened to he/she/it" English actually works this way too, and you can see this by looking at Matt 15:18 and swapping out "this" for "that." It makes zero impact on the meaning of the verse because
>and this defiles a person
and
>and that defiles a person
mean the exact same thing, so using εκεινος vs τουτο is just a stylistic variance. You might be thinking, "aha, that's the same usage I was talking about in Matthew 23:23!" but remember that Mt. 23:23 has a clear "this ... that ..." structure, leaving no ambiguity as to the meaning of εκεινος in that context. In all these examples where it takes the secondary use, it is meaning "that one" like you might point to a donut in a donut shop and say, "give me that one." Greek uses this as a transition between clauses way more than English does. Back to the donut store analogy, they might often say, "I would like a chocolate donut, that one with the sprinkles." You see that it is still being demonstrative, but is not primarily communicating a distance.
>Mark 12:4 Again he sent to them another servant, and they struck him [εκεινος] on the head and treated him shamefully.
This is another case where εκεινος is taking the secondary usage, and is also being weakened to a pronoun. The full literal translation would be:
>And again he sent to them another servant, and that one they beat over the head and dishonored.
This is awkward phrasing for English so the "and that one" gets weakened into "and ... him."
>John 7:29 I know him, for I come from him, and he [κακεινος] sent me.
This is similar to Mark 12:4 where the literal translation would end up "and that one sent me," which is awkward English phrasing, so it gets translated/weakened to "and he" because it makes more sense to the English reader.
>Acts 5:37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too [κακεινος] perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
This is, again, the same usage :) The literal translation for that would be, "and he withdrew people after himself; and that one was destroyed." Again, referring to someone as a "that one" is awkward in English, so it becomes "he" instead. I'm not sure where the "too" comes from, it might be from the context of the narrative, or it might be an implication of the εκεινος.
>2 Tim 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he [κακεινος] also will deny us;
This whole verse is obscure when translated literally and carries a lot of implied subjects. It goes
>If we endure, then we will reign with; If we deny (future tense!), and that one will deny us.
Translators add in the implied "him" when it is needed, and turn the [κακεινος] into a pronoun once again, this time completely dropping the "and" that would naturally come out of the και in κακεινος.
So that's all of them! The demonstrative εκεινος can mean "that one" like "that one right there" or "that one we I just mentioned," and when it is used weakly it can even be interchangeable with τουτο (pointing and saying "I would like this donut" instead of "I would like that donut", means the same thing!).
I'll go ahead and submit this and reply to it in order to continue the Greek topic.
The Spirit of Early Christian Thought by Robert Louis Wilken
> In this eloquent introduction to early Christian thought, eminent religious historian Robert Louis Wilken examines the tradition that such figures as St. Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and others set in place. These early thinkers constructed a new intellectual and spiritual world, Wilken shows, and they can still be heard as living voices in the modern world.
EDIT: this will go beyond the 1st and 2nd centuries, but might still be worth something to you.
Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church by Michael Haykin
The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God by Robert Louis Wilken
The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church) by Henry Chadwick
Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly
And of course, works such as On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, and The Confessions by St. Augustine
Sure: The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, Nicaea and Its Legacy Anything by John Zizioulas.
If Bart Ehrman is a Christian apologist, then I might as well be Jesus! Ehrman is an agnostic atheist, and about as far from being an apologist as you can get (you can tell because some Christians write books trying to refute him). He is a highly respected New Testament scholar and has written standard university textbooks in biblical studies. You can find a complete list of his books here. The formation of the biblical canon is a massive topic, but for the New Testament Ehrman has written something of a three-part series: Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted, and Forged (which I'm reading right now and highly recommend). These are all books aimed at a general audience and are easier to grok than his academic texts.
This will probably start a flamewar, but I should also point out that Richard Carrier's views are pretty far off the beaten path. There's nothing wrong with that, but crucially, they seem to be motivated by his personal ideology as an atheist more than objective scholarship. (Yes, Jesus did exist, and no, you can't use Bayes' Theorem to prove he didn't).
As a side note, Yale has free online courses about the [Old Testament](http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
) and [New Testament](http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
), along with books to go with them. These lectures really are incredible in framing the history of the Bible within its ancient context. I finished watching them a few weeks ago, and they have completely changed my perspective on the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity. You can find content of a similar nature in r/AcademicBiblical, which is a sub devoted to biblical scholarship. Cheers!
How God Became Jesus was an evangelical critique of Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.
Christianity: I've heard that Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch is fantastic. I haven't read it. It's called "Christianity", not "Catholicism", but it might work for you given that Catholicism pretty much was Christianity until (relatively) recently.
French Revolution: Citizens by Simon Schama.
Can't help you with Zoroastrianism.
This was a huge point of discussion and contention in the early church. The Gnostic Gospels is a great book detailing some of the thoughts of groups who saw the two as pretty different, and their conflicts with those who saw the two as identical. It is well worth a read.
Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels" would be a good place to start. Far from a complete analysis, doesn't really get into the "conspiracy" angle of things, BUT---if you're really interested in going down this path to learn, there is no better primer to understanding the content and background of the 1947 Dead Sea Scrolls discovery.
https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532
> Robert Spencer
I'd personally look up early stuff by him, if that really.
I'd recommend something like this(By Thomas Madden).
Edit: added author's name
I read this collection as well as a few short letters that weren't included in it.
I had a separate collection as well but I can't remember that one, sorry!
If you want church fathers, The Apostolic Fathers in English is a good place to start. These would be the earliest writings aside from the New Testament. (1st/2nd century)
From there, the writings of individual fathers are more extant so you could pick a father at a time and go from there. Justin Martyr is great, as is Origen or Athanasius. A personal favorite is Gregory of Nyssa.
You've got a lot going on here, but here's my tuppence...
Orthodoxy has spread through the use of the local language, and documents get translated into local languages. So, you don't need to learn another language to read Orthodox writings. If you don't already know the mother tongue of the tradition your church is in (I have no idea where you are), check that one out.
That said, OCA clergy learn Koine Greek in seminary (I have this by word of those who went to St. Vladimir and to St. Tikhon). ROCOR learn Church Slavonic and Russian. It's all kind of what you want to learn there.
The majority of things were written in Koine Greek. The Septuagint is Greek, and much of the New Testament (if not all of it... my coffee hasn't kicked in enough to remember) was originally in Greek. The book The Apostolic Fathers (I have an earlier edition), which has 2nd century Christian writings and letters is in Greek and English.
There are a lot of writings in Slavonic and Russian, though, as well, since the Slavs have had Christianity for over a millennium. Coptic, Ge'ez, or Amharic wouldn't be bad to learn, but most of the writings you'll find there are Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean). If you're looking for a challenge, there's Georgian (EO) or Armenian (OO).
Ranking language by importance is probably not a useful exercise, since different languages will be important to different people. Romanian is more important to Romanians than to the Arabs or Greeks, as a wild example.
The blessings of the Lord.
This would be a good choice for the Apostolic Fathers.
παιδοφθορησεις
Chapter 2, verse 2. Here's an interlinear you can look at online too: The-Interlinear-Didache.html
Edit: this site has it translated as (literally) "you will do child not sex", whereas other translations have it as "you shall not corrupt children" (such as in The Apostolic Fathers; Micheal W. Holmes ), and others still the more concise word of "pederasty".
Well I just got and am reading Joy to the World and Apostolic Fathers
I completely agree. That is a phenomenal book. I've actually started re-reading it again just recently. This will be the 5th time I've read it in the last 5 years! The first time I read it, I immediately turned back to page 1 and started re-reading it! Some of the very best historical non-fiction I've ever encountered.
https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645
If you're interested in nerdy stuff like history check out the book Empires of the Sea. About a third of the book is dedicated to Siege of Malta and now I can't wait to visit next spring!
Empires of the Sea is a very interesting and easy to read book about the siege of Malta and the battle of Lepanto. Most people don't realize how close the Ottoman Empire was to making serious headway into Europe and how easily the world could have been different. The siege of Malta is an incredible display of bravery in the face of incredibly bad odds.
http://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710
your right, in particular nd and the kkk have some famous history.
I recommend this book. We used it in (christian) high school and found it very readable.
http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-In-Plain-Language/dp/0849938619
Check out Those Terrible Middle Ages
You seem to have a LOT of misconceptions as to what life was like in the so-called "middle ages" of Catholic Christendom. I would recommend this book by Pernoud. In the original French if you can read that.
> early history (formation and evolution) of the Catholic Church
Best books on this are probably just books on the early church in general. Philip Schaff's Church History volumes are good. Also can't go wrong with Eusebius. You might want books on the development of doctrines and practices that are now more specifically seen as Catholic distinctives. I don't have any suggestions, but you might want to look into (or ask for) books on the development of the papacy, episcopacy, Mariology, purgatory, etc.
> history of Christianity in Syria, particularly the Ma'loula area
I don't know about Syria specifically, but you may want a book that details Asian Christianity and specifically the Church of the East, like A History of Christianity in Asia.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Asia-Beginnings-1500/dp/1570751625/ref=pd_sim_b_6
If Nestorian Christianity/ Christianity in Asia interest you, the two best books I have found about it are Phillip Jenkins' The Lost History of Christianity , which is aimed toward a more popular audience, and Samuel Moffet's History of Christianity in Asia before 1500 , which is a more academic text.
It could be a fun discussion if we had the time. We could exchange books and papers to be read and talk for years. In the end I likely won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I'd say we leave it at that.
But just do adress a few points briefly:
Some of the Bible's content is factual, yes - but other parts are clearly not - including the gospels (to what extent is up for debate).
The gospel of John was written up to 90 years after the supposed events, the writer could not possibly have witnessed the supposed events himself.
Assuming the basic events described in the gospels actually happened, an empty tomb does not mean the body was resurrected. Many other explanations are more likely.
Just because you find accuracies in some parts of the Bible, that does not mean that every part is accurate. Let's assume there are 1000 accuracies, there are at least several hundred contradictions & "funny stuff" (demons, angels, talking animals) as well.
Anyway if you want to read about the opposite position:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591025362
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Neither-God-Case-Mythical/dp/0968925928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371753883&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+neither+god+nor+man
as well as any books and talks on the topic by Robert Price, he's a brilliant guy.
You apparently think the case for the gospel & bible truth is quite strong, so please link me what you consider the best arguments for them. Don't forget, if you make the claim that the truth of the Bible is pretty obvious, you have to support the claim.
I'm waiting on my order for "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" shill.
It's one of the more 'kosher' books on the topic, but it's pretty well regarded and the author researched the topic for years before writing it. The whole purpose of the book is to completely demolish the myth of 'Enlightened and tolerant Muslims in the middle ages'.
Not exactly what you're looking for but a hell of a lot more credible than a tumblr post.
Here’s a book regarding the myth of the Islamic paradise of Iberia which a lot of people fall for: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954
David Bentley Hart is unparalleled in terms of knowledge, wit, imagination, eloquence, and is perhaps the greatest living Christian thinker today.
He just put out a translation of the New Testament through Yale University Press which is incredible.
His newest book is called The Experience of God and it is mind-boggling.
Atheist Delusions absolutely eviscerates pop atheism.
His theological magum opus, The Beauty of the Infinite has been called the greatest work of theology so far this century.
The Doors of the Sea is required reading for anyone who struggles with the issue of evil.
His work is sublime.
No problem. I find all of this very interesting.
I recommend reading How Jesus Became God .
Even if you only read the first chapter, I think it has a wealth of information concerning the history of Jesus. His other book "Misquoting Jesus" has some interesting facts, but it doesn't really address the question of "Who was this Jesus guy before they made up a bunch of stories about him" as much as this newer book.
A great book about a historical perspective of Jesus is How Jesus Became God by Bart D. Ehrman, if you have audible the book is on there too but I listened to his lectures of the same name from “The Great Courses” series Audible hosts and it was pretty amazing. Guy is a historian and does a great job of keeping it in that same perspective. Very enlightening.
The family http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/0060559799
scary as all hell
Sounds like these guys The family
The Family
This one not only makes you go "HOLY SHIT" at the end; it makes you start going "HOLY SHIT" from the very beginning.
This would be true and expected. The point is that those people could and would be held accountable to their own actions.
A lot of leaders are driven by their a divine right (e.g. read the Family http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060559799). It would take some steam away from people who use religion for such purposes and maybe even prevent them from getting to such a position in the first place.
If you can expose those people to be greedy, immoral and merciless and if that is what's required for leadership then so be it. At least it would then be open and transparent.
I think it depends on the discipline (Thayer's NT specific, so less so in mine). Older LSJs have also hit public domain, hence Perseus having them. I'm sure one of our seminarians could do better on this, but it looks like a recent NT Lexicon is Bauer's. Looks pricey though, for non-professional use.
Well there's the Wikipedia of course. It uses several different (though some conflicting) sources.
But the one that I get the definition and the particular count from is actually Bauer's Lexicon that had its 3rd edition published in 2001. It's considered one of the bigger of the big boys when it comes to understanding the old terms.
Oh! The word I reference is "porneia" in Greek.
Edit: You can also use an Interlinear translation to count off the number of uses. Though that would take a lot of reading.
Which should be read in tandem with How God Became Jesus :)
>Which make you wrong. Yahweh does not mean "Lord."
Ha ha ha, No, it means you misunderstood Bowman's point!
> Read Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.
Been there, done that. Read How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman to see what Erhman got wrong.
Or How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus '
or Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ
or Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed
>Because the Bible often call things "God" figuratively that are not God, including kings (for example in Psalm 45:6-7 or the coronation song in Isaiah 9) and the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 3:2-4. In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 182:
And if you'd actually read Bowman you'd see these have been addressed.
Look into the Council of Nicea. I'm sure you can find some great books at the library as well. Not only did it lay down a lot of foundational doctrine and canon law that you say you're interested in, it was the first of several church councils that continued to occur largely under the auspices of the Byzantine government.
Also, this is a really good book on church history, which I think covers that period fairly well for a book so broad in scope.
A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch (who is not himself Catholic, or even Christian)
This is a very good book on the history of christianity. It's long (just like it needs to, but good).
Yes, the humans that are Christians have a long history of fighting with each other over various intertwined religious and political points of view. Teasing apart the political from the religious is by no means a small task.
Many of the above and many more throughout history were in fact connected to church teachings. Well, I suppose that depends on how your tradition defines "church teachings", but it's often found in official church policy and the writings of many so called heroes of the faith. Remember, both the Catholics and the protestants in the 1600s were burning heretics at the stake. John Calvin, himself a reformer, wrote in favor of the death of Michael Servetus for taking reform too far, and embracing damnable heresies.
The platonic ideal of Christianity (if existent, no two groups of Christians can seem to agree on what that is) is of course not responsible for these behaviors of it's followers, but it's hard to deny that the history of Christianity from the first holy war, rise of orthodoxy and expulsions for heresy under Constantine until now is not littered with conflict. If you think I'm pulling your leg, go read "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years". It's over a thousand pages of the history of Christianity. A large amount of those are about the many conflicts that have occurred, and their origins.
Sometimes the conflict is cerebral, sometimes political, occasionally descending into violence and very seldom even torture. It's true the conflicts have been varied, but denying the conflicts exist is simply untenable.
I read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels and it was quite good, it's also not super long. A great introductory book on the subject. I think she's written a few on Gnosticism and related subjects.
amazon link here!
Just curious, did you grow up in a religious household? Growing up in a Catholic household, I was constantly exposed to the religion but never asked questions. I went down this path of curiosity on Christianity a few years ago and read a few books and watched a few documentaries. The fact is, there is very little data on the historical Jesus, so you'll have to come to your own conclusions. A few things that helped me come to my conclusion:
An interesting free Yale open course that deals with the historical context of the New Testament -
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
An introduction to the "banned" books of the bible. One could suggest that these were influenced by other religions of the east, and did not fit the narrative of the current version of the Bible -
http://www.amazon.com/The-Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532
One authors interpretation of what Jesus probably was given the historical context and the political strife of that time -
http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/0812981480/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449711190&sr=1-1&keywords=zealot
Good luck!
"The Concise History of the Crusades" - Thomas F. Madden
Updated Student Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Crusades-Critical-International/dp/0742538230
Also a very good read
I found the following very interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1323325754&sr=8-3
You can also try:
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Middle-Ages-Norman-Cantor/dp/0688123023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323325834&sr=8-1
You might want to check out this book. In parts, it explains that the Klan is weakened when ignored, and it demonstrates how the Klan grows when confronted. Plus, it's got some great history of Notre Dame football in it:
https://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710
https://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710
I believe OP was referring to 1924 and this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Klan
It was the closest the clan ever had to controlling legitimately state government.
Also great read:
https://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710
While is true there was no consensus in early Christianity, Paul is far from being rejected by the apostles, even though he had his divergences, since he was a Roman citizen and had knowledge on Greek and Latin philosophy, while most of the apostles were born and raised Jews. This is beautifully explained by Bruce Shelley's "Church History in Plain Language": https://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Plain-Language-Shelley/dp/0849938619
This difference between christians is explained in the first couple of chapters.
Moreover, you brought Paul's book in the bible in the first place, to question his eligibility is dubious. Besides that, christians (myself included) believe that the bible is the truth, it is infallible, so there is no point in questioning the authority of Paul. However, I understand if this argument does not appeal to everyone.
Depending on which level you prefer, I would suggest two books.
Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley provides a very basic, simple, broad stroke approach to church history. The elitists here won't care much for it, but this is a good place to start for someone who is not at all familiar with the history of the church.
If you want a little more detail, History of Christianity is one of my favorites.
The Middle Ages was awesome for Catholic philosophy and the Faith.
EDIT: You may find this book interesting! https://www.amazon.com/Those-Terrible-Middle-Ages-Debunking/dp/0898707811
I sent you four links, but I usually make them part of the text. They're blue. To avoid the trouble of going back, though, here:
There is also this Amazon Book: http://www.amazon.com/Those-Terrible-Middle-Ages-Debunking/dp/0898707811
Ross Douthat explores this topic less, uh.... how to put this charitably... clumsily in his book "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics."
He doesn't come out and call this sort of thing "atheism", but it is heresy that is out of step with most of Church history.
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Religion-Became-Nation-Heretics/dp/143917833X
Has anyone read Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age? I picked it up last week to start exploring his concept of the “buffered self” which helps explain the decline of the church in the West. I’ve read some other books on the topic (like Joseph Bottum’s An Anxious Age and Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion), both which offer some interesting ideas as to what caused the decline overall. There’s certainly a lot to explore, though given how complicated it all is.
I saw this on nytimes.com and thought, oh, this should be good (/s), and then I saw Ross Douthat was the writer. I doubt he's pro-choice.
Amazon link to his book on the same subject:
The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos
In this radical critique of his own academic specialty, biblical scholar Hector Avalos calls for an end to biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for this surprising conclusion. First, academic biblical scholarship has clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilization that produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs and concerns of contemporary human beings. Second, Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today’s world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.
Dividing his study into two parts, Avalos first examines the principal subdisciplines of biblical studies (textual criticism, archaeology, historical criticism, literary criticism, biblical theology, and translations) in order to show how these fields are still influenced by religiously motivated agendas despite claims to independence from religious premises. In the second part, he focuses on the infrastructure that supports academic biblical studies to maintain the value of the profession and the Bible. This infrastructure includes academia (public and private universities and colleges), churches, the media-publishing complex, and professional organizations such as the Society of Biblical Literature.
In a controversial conclusion, Avalos argues that our world is best served by leaving the Bible as a relic of an ancient civilization instead of the "living" document most religionist scholars believe it should be. He urges his colleagues to concentrate on educating the broader society to recognize the irrelevance and even violent effects of the Bible in modern life.
H'm, Hector Avalos, who I didn't think was regarded as barking mad, calls himself an agnostic on the subject (this podcast starting at 47:30), and has a chapter "The Unhistorical Jesus" in his book "The End of Biblical Studies".
Here's a page that lists several scholarly theories of Jesus including some that suggest there was no flesh-and-blood person at the root of them.
As I mention below, I like Christopher Hitchens' point that the huge amount of fudging required to get Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem to satisfy an OT prophesy suggests that whoever wrote it wasn't just making it up out of whole cloth, but had some awkward historical facts to explain away.
The real question is how much divergence from the gospels you are willing to accept in a "historical Jesus". That there was some dude wandering the area at that time preaching? I'll grant you that, simply because it doesn't matter.
> ask them to prove the existence of any particular person from the time of Jesus, who wasn't an Emperor or king.
The evidence for the existence of Pliny the Elder is pretty strong.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2GRZ2I72J3D1B&colid=1TSEUWEURSQKF
Does anyone know anything more about Dario Fernandez-Morera's The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain? I saw it in my local bookshop in a hardback edition with a fairly impressive list of academic cover quotes. It purports to demolish the "coexistence"-thesis of medieval Andalusia, instead arguing that the Al-Andalus was governed like most territories occupied by a foreign power; that is to say, brutally. I didn't buy it, though, because it was expensive, and for the same price I could get Joe Abercrombie's The Blade Itself and a copy of The Good Soldier Svejk.
It seems to have a warm academic reception from the dustjacket quotations and this review by Laina Farhat-Holzman, but I don't know enough about the period or the state of the scholarship to evaluate it myself.
-----
Do any other British badhistorians think that the way British popular history and national historical sites focus on the
garum wogsRomans to the exclusion of the native inhabitants of the isles at the time is annoying? It seems like a classic example of history being written by the literate. The Roman invasion of Caledonia was extremely bloody judging by the evidence of reforestation around the Black Loch in Fife, yet Scottish history as taught still focuses entirely on the Romans and their supposed technical achievements.> was under Muslim control where Christians and Jews all lived peacefully together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
>With few exceptions, the Christians knowingly risked execution by making public statements proclaiming their Christianity in the presence of Muslims. Some of the martyrs were executed for blasphemy after they appeared before the Muslim authorities and denounced Muhammad, while others who were Christian children of Muslim-Christian marriages publicly proclaimed their Christianity and thus were executed as apostates. Still others who had previously converted to Islam denounced their new faith and returned to Christianity, and thus were also executed as apostates.
>The forty-eight Christians (mostly monks) were martyred in Córdoba, between the years 850 AD and 859 AD, being decapitated for publicly proclaiming their Christian beliefs. Dhimmis (non-Muslims living under Muslim rule) were not allowed to speak of their faith to Muslims under penalty of death.
>Mark Cohen, professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, in his Under Crescent and Cross, calls the "idealized" interfaith utopia a "myth" that was first promulgated by Jewish historians such as Heinrich Graetz in the 19th century as a rebuke to Christian countries for their treatment of Jews.[11] This myth was met with what Cohen calls the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" by Bat Yeor and others,[11] which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality
>The Spanish mediaevalist Eduardo Manzano Moreno wrote that the concept of convivencia has no support in the historical record [“el concepto de convivencia no tiene ninguna apoyatura histórica“].
>During the Muslim rule of much of the Iberian Peninsula, Jews were living in an uneasy coexistence with Muslims and Catholics, and the relationship between these groups was, more often than not, marked by segregation and mutual hostility.[13] In the 1066 Granada massacre of the entire Jewish population of the city, the Jewish death toll was higher than in the much publicized Christian pogroms in the Rhineland slightly later.[13] The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) was forced to flee from Al-Andalus to avoid conversion by the Almohads, which may have prompted his bitter statement that Islam had inflicted more pain on the Jewish people than any other 'nation'.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Convivencia
https://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954
>AD 976 – Library of al-Hakam II : Córdoba, Al-Andalus – All books consisting of “ancient science” were destroyed by the order of Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir & religious scholars.
Actually it wasn't that progressive, more then Europe I guess but not heaven on earth.
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954
Richard Dawkins is hardly an authority on any subject, especially philosophy. It doesn't get much more contradictory than Dawkins. Through the Darwinian materialist's lens, the concept of love as our culture has understood it for the past two thousand years (thanks to Christianity) does not exist. "Love" can only be reduced to a meaningless impulse meant to lead to reproduction. All the virtue and high concepts that we typically ascribe to love have to be dismissed as delusional.
Taking Dawkin's worldview into consideration, his assertion that you don't need physical evidence to know that someone loves you; that you can deduce this merely from the way one looks at you or through their body language, becomes outright absurd. Not to mention it doesn't even take into consideration the very real possibility for ulterior motives, for the human tendency of feigning & lying. This is inconsistent skepticism in so many ways.
What if I told you: You don't need physical evidence to know that God is real. You can feel His presence in times of prayer and you can witness His sovereignty through incredible synchronicities and unlikely events which seem to occur solely as an answer to your prayers. Looking from the outside, through the materialist's lens, this as unverifiable a claim as Dawkin's, yet his you will assent to and mine you will dismiss.
You are correct in saying that evidence comes in different ways - experiential evidence is one of them. And I offered you a method to experientially test out our claims for yourself, but you have also dismissed that.
In fact, you will dismiss literally everything I say, regardless of how sensible it may be, as you have already dismissed me as an idiot who needs to grow up, because of your presuppositions regarding people who have faith.
So please, I beg you, for the sake of truth (or at least for the sake of mere knowledge), read some of Richard Dawkin's opponents before hastily making up your mind. You will be surprised to find that there are highly intelligent voices out there (surprised thanks to Dawkin's tendency to pick the lowest hanging fruits as far as choosing debate opponents goes) who, frankly, outright destroy his arguments. Start with David Bentley Hart (a man Richard Dawkins would never dare debate, with good reason). Please do this.
I also invite you to come converse (civilly) with us on our Christian discord channel if you ever feel inclined.
I suspect this is something of a false understanding of history. I noticed in Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis mentions he doesn't believe in the dark ages and renaissance in the traditional sense, and that has sense got me wondering if there hasn't been some distortion of history to fit a cleaner narrative.
I just picked up this book by David Bentley Hart, which despite the inflammatory title, sets out to correct the common understanding of the last 2,000 years, the dark ages and renaissance included.
It's curious. I'm looking forward to learning other perspectives than what I was taught growing up, and suspect that the narrative your graph suggests is flawed.
The Bible Unearthed shows that the O.T. stories are not based on fact, and were compiled/written with political bias.
Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman shows how early Christianity was split and how one strain became dominant
How Jesus became God also by Bart Ehrman, shows how the theology of the trinity evolved over Christianity's first few centuries.
>If you haven't read the book, how do you know you've seen his arguments elsewhere?
As I said, I've seen parts of his book referenced, and read the title. I've heard others claim that Jesus did not believe Himself to be God, but I've seen just as many claims to the contrary.
>here may be some disagreement, but the basis of his argument is considered fact by scholars
Did or did not Jesus believe Himself to be divine? I would think if there was a wide a consensus on that question as you state, Wikipedia probably wouldn't say this. Here is one article that goes into depth debating one of the basis of Erhman's claims. There is an entire book devoted to rebutting Ehrman's claims. So, if one wants to claim Jesus did not believe Himself to be divine, you would not find a scholarly consensus.
>As for my argument, it was more than simply one sentence. I pointed out the reasoning for my argument, which is a historical argument. As I argue, Jesus is first seen as a religious leader, and eventually is said to be God. So Jesus eventually becomes God.
There are good reasons to believe this, but many other good reasons to not. You can not claim this definitively.
I believe Elaine Pagels was directly involved
with the study of these texts. She is an exceptional
and engaging writer.
https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532
In history, especially as it applies to the Christian tradition, you should never go with what the majority says for many good reasons. You should check every bit of work you find and read it for yourself. The majority of biblical studies is a cess-pool of preconceived notions and bad scholarship.
More:
The End of Biblical Studies, Hector Avalos
Online: Ignatian Vexation, Richard Carrier
Proving History, Richard Carrier
One of the first Great examples of using historical methods on theological issues: The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, David Friedrich Strauss (1860)
Coexisted" in spain? The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610170954/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_Jc.Uzb2K2SCER]
There have been various responses to 'How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee' by Bart Ehrman including two books published the same day! -
I actually just read a book about how ND students successfuly ran the KKK out of South Bend in the 1920's. Great read about the time period and the history of the school.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0829417710