(Part 2) Best religious criticism books according to redditors
We found 922 Reddit comments discussing the best religious criticism books. We ranked the 344 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted (2010)
In this deliciously satisfying book, the author, a New Testament scholar, carefully reviews and assesses the New Testament with a detailed and extremely thorough analysis of the figure we call Jesus. This is not a rant, not an attack on Christianity, this is an objective and critical analysis of the New Testament, showing how the entire Jesus myth and indeed, all of Christianity is a purposely-designed fabrication rife with contradictions, inaccuracies, and sometimes outright falsehoods.
John Loftus - Why I Became an Atheist (2008)
If you want a one-stop total critique of Christianity, this is the book you're looking for. The author is a former Christian apologist turned extremely angry and prolific atheist. In this book Loftus attacks the full span of Christianity, addressing the philosophical arguments against theism, the historical incompatibilities and inaccuracies of the Bible, and the contradictions between creationism and modern science, and throughout it all is an undercurrent of personal experience as Loftus explains his own deconversion from devout evangelicalism to enraged atheist.
Concerning atheism.
These are for the people going "Well, I'm an atheist. Now what?" There's more to atheism than eating babies and posting fake facebook conversations on r/atheism. There's much more truth, beauty, and value in a universe without a celestial supervisor, where humans are free to make our own purposes and dictate our own paths. Thinking for yourself and recognizing the natural wonder of the universe is far greater than the false consolation any religion can provide you. These books show how.
Michael Martin - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1989)
In this book, Martin attempts a two-pronged defense of atheism: first by attacking theistic arguments regarding the implausibility of morality and purpose without God, second by defending against attacks specifically on atheism. In such a manner he makes a strong case for both negative and positive atheism. Though extremely dated, this book is a classic and a must-read for any atheist.
Erik J. Wielenberg - Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (2005)
In this book, Wielenberg advances a naturalist philosophy and addresses the problem of nontheistic morality as weakly espoused by the likes of Dostoevsky and C.S. Lewis. First he challenges the claims of theistic morality, next he advances naturalistic ethics and displays how theological justification is unnecessary for a good and moral life. Concepts such as intrinsic morality, inherent human tendencies such as charity and altruism, and the idea of moral obligations are all addressed.
Richard Carrier - Sense and Goodness Without God (2005)
In this book, Richard Carrier, perhaps most well-known as one of the major modern debunkers of the Jesus myth, continues the trend of expanding metaphysical naturalism, but this is a more complex and thorough work covering the full spectrum of a developed worldview, addressing nearly every topic beyond just morality, and presents a complete philosophical outlook on life that is easy to comprehend and evaluate. A solid starting point for the newly atheist.
My personal picks.
Now, since this is my list after all, and after typing up all of that, I think I've earned the right to make my own recommendations. These are books that I think people should read that don't necessarily have anything to do with atheism.
Markos Moulitsas - American Taliban (2010)
This book reads like a collection of loosely-related blog entries, some of them written by angry teenagers, and Moulitsas himself is no philosopher or professor, but is still an important read for those of you who haven't been paying attention. In this book, the founder of Daily Kos draws the extremely obvious and transparent similarities between the religious right of America, and the Islamofascists across the pond, and displays how modern conservatism has largely been hijacked and/or replaced by a complex political machine intent on maintaining the power of a small group of white, male, Christian elite.
Chris Hedges - American Fascists (2007)
Okay, time for a more sophisticated take on the issue than Daily Kos stuff. Those of you who plan on staying and fighting in the US rather than simply getting the fuck out while you still can need this book. With a critical and objective eye, Hedges displays the dark and tumultuous underbelly of America and shows how an extremely powerful and well-organized coalition of dominionists is slowly taking over the country and seeking to transform it into a theocratic state. Those of you who are moderate Christians and similarly despise the lunatic fringe of Christians should also read this book. Hedges analyzes this Christian Right movement, allied with totalitarianism and a denial of reality, that has declared a jihad (or a "teahad", if you're a Tea Partier) on secularism and even on Christianity itself, utilizing religion for its darkest and most sinister purpose - committing cruelty and intolerance upon others in the name of divine supervision.
CJ Werleman - God Hates You, Hate Him Back (2009)
This is one of my favorite books and is a great book to unwind with after a critical look at Christianity. The biggest problem with the Bible is not the contradictions, the outright falsehoods, or even the blatantly made-up and ridiculous bullshit about magic and miracles and supernatural nonsense - it's the fact that, taking it all at face value, the God described in the Bible is the single most despicable and terrifying fictional villain ever imagined by humanity. This is a character that seems to actively despise mankind, and in this book, Werleman shows why with a hilarious and thorough analysis of the Bible. This book reads like Monty Python and is just as funny - not meant to be taken seriously of course unless you're a Biblical literalist, but still a great read.
Well, that's all I got. This list took about half a day to compile and is itself also woefully inadequate, there's quite a bit of books I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But, it should be much more sufficient than the current r/atheism reading lists and I've done my best to include the most recent works. If you have any books to add that you feel are noteworthy, please feel free to post them. I hope this list can help many people in their understanding of philosophy and atheism.
This book is a fun read.
The author keeps a running kill count, it's great.
Evil & the Justice of God, NT Wright
http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Justice-God-N-Wright/dp/083083415X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405433888&sr=8-1&keywords=evil+justice+god
It depends. I actually recommend not getting stuck reading religious arguments and anti-religious arguments. Try instead simply learning about the world. Your life and happiness don't need to be defined by religion, there's a lot more out there.
Read some books on science and history, not religious or atheist ones, just ones that expand knowledge. Things like Cosmos, or a History of the Peloponnesian War. Read about different cultures and their myths, like Edith Hamilton's Mythology. Read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And in the meantime, just be a good person who loves their friends and family, and don't worry about God, or the lack thereof.
When you've learned more and feel comfortable, I suggest learning about the history of your religion, and what people actually believed, not just what the religion claims it was always like. Karen Armstrong's 'The Bible' is a good one. Read an annotated Bible and look at what's actually there. Then feel free to read an apologist and atheist book to hear both sides.
Most importantly, you should be learning for the sake of learning, and enjoy it. Don't feel guilty or torn. That you feel like you deserve eternal torment for simply participating in a ritual with friends and family is a fucking tragedy. Hell, Christmas and Easter are mostly made of pagan traditions, some explicitly outlawed in the Bible, but I'm sure eating chocolate eggs and decorating the tree doesn't make you feel sinful, not should it. We give these things our own meaning, there's no outside force causing you unhappiness or judging you.
Up until recently, no scholar would admit to doubting a historical Jesus, because religious partisanship influenced the historical perspective for over a thousand years. But accredited scholars are now casting doubt into that view.
I don't think it can be definitively said that there's no possibility a historical Jesus existed, but as it stands I consider the claim not proven. Historians say there's no doubt because people have always believed there was evidence because that's what we've been told. But when we actually look at the evidence -- over the objections of religious partisans -- there are a lot of forgeries and gaps.
I believe that the only inspired word of God is Rappin' With Jesus, the Ebonics Bible. All others be downright heretical, yo.
New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
More Than a Carpenter
Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels On my to read list.
Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for a Creator
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus On my to read list.
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ On my to read list.
Besides the apologetics books, you can watch John Lennox on YouTube. He is a very well-spoken and kind (doesn't attack the other debater) debater. Very well thought out responses. The Dawkins vs Lennox debate was awesome! Ditto Gary Habermas as well.
Alternatively,
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J0OPUZM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I think this is pretty sound.
The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots by T.J. Wray and Gregory Mobley
To be honest -- and I promise that I'm making this as not-a-copout as I can -- my feeling is that if you're even taking the position that the entirety of the Bible is authentic and accurate, there's such a gulf of understanding between us that trying to bridge it would be well outside of the scope of a few posts.
I'll try to summarize as best I can, here.
Old Testament: The Torah was not given to Moses by God. Large portions of "God's laws" existed in other cultures before even the Jews claim that they were given to Moses. Like, word-for-word, verse for verse, verbatim. Sometimes with minor changes. The Law is clearly not entirely divine in origin, if any of it is (personally, I think I see the hand of God in places in Deuteronomy, but I'm not sure). Similarly, a great deal of the OT is founded upon pre-existing myths from other cultures in Mesopotamia. We're able to discern several different agents at work in the text, including people who clearly have very different conceptions of God, writing at different times, as well as any number of redactors. In some cases, it's pretty clear that the final version of the text was based upon a later writer completely failing to understand the original writer. In some cases, multiple incompatible versions of stories were combined into the text serially by redactors who clearly had no idea that the text was supposed to be "perfect". Check out the stories about how David met Saul, for example. Also, a lot of the traditional interpretations of things came about when the Jews noted the many flaws, inconsistencies, and absurdities in the Torah, and invented all sorts of amazing (and often ridiculous) explanations for them.
For more on this, I cannot recommend highly enough James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. It's written by a very intellectually honest orthodox Jew, which is very valuable to me because it's as unbiased as possible while still being sympathetic and open to the theist view. No joke, I will buy this for you in a heartbeat if you send me an address. It will radically transform and improve your understanding of these things.
As to the Gospels, you ought to be able to find any number of websites describing its inaccuracies and contradictions. Of course, there's a strain of fundamentalism that insists, through astounding intellectual dishonesty, that there are no contradictions. To assert this, one must use a definition of "contradiction" that would be prima facie absurd in any other context. The differing accounts of Jesus' birth, the date of the Last Supper, and so, so much more. Also, many of the accounts of Jesus' life are clearly, shall we say, modified to make the points that the authors cared about, such as Jesus's genealogy falling into nice round numbers that it actually didn't. Also, a lot of details seem to have been invented after the fact to give the impression that Jesus fulfilled prophecies that he likely didn't (As a Christian this doesn't bother me; I don't see the OT as inerrant, so it's not surprising to me that many of its prophecies were wrong). For example, the narrative wherein the family has to travel for a census (never happened) so that Jesus could be in the city that prophecy said the Messiah would be born in (he probably wasn't).
For more on this subject... I like Marcus Borg. Actually, this book by him and N.T. Wright does a great job examining such matters from multiple perspectives, as it's written in a format where they disagree with each other and give their own takes on things. Borg represents (IMO) rational but honest scholarship taken too far, whereas Wright represents a more traditional but still informed perspective. This book covers many important topics, such as many of the miracles, the nativity, the resurrection, and so on. If you want to be able to defend yourself against atheist attacks, buy this book if only for Wright's sections. But read Borg's, too. They'll open your eyes to so much.
Okay, now let's talk epistles. The wikipedia article on the subject of the Pauline Epistles is a great jumping-off point. For a more in-depth treatment, I really liked Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted though it definitely deals a lot with the gospels as well.
I'd like to make two more points in closing. The first is that there's just no reason at all to think that the Bible is accurate and authentic in its entirety. None. It doesn't even claim to be. It can't. It wasn't fully compiled until hundreds of years after its constituent parts were written, therefore it logically cannot be self-referential. When (not) Paul wrote that all scripture is God-breathed, he couldn't have been including the books that hadn't been written yet. Also, as you'll see if you read Kugel's book, much of scripture is clearly not inspired. Some would argue that it's still the book that God wanted us to end up with, but that raises the question of why there are so many different versions. Some bibles have books that others don't. Some translate things in contradictory ways to others. There is just no way to suggest that there's some kind of special force watching out for this book; we'd first have to posit that there's a single "right" version and then ask how we know which that is.
Secondly, consider so many of the things in the Bible that are, to put it mildly, inconvenient. Are iron chariots God's Achilles heel (Judges 1:19)? Why didn't any contemporary writers (including the other gospel authors) say anything about the zombie horde that broke loose in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)? Oh, and let me tell you a story:
God made the world and he saw that it was good. Except, it wasn't. So he decides that he's going to kill everyone except for one good guy and his family. So two (or seven) of every kind of animal gets crammed into -- well, we'll skip this part, you know it. But anyway, afterward, God realizes that he's made a huuuuuuge mistake and promises not to do it again.
And that is where rainbows come from.
Have you checked out Jesus on Every Page by David Murray? He has a chapter in there called "Christ's Presence" that deals with the angel of the Lord and Christophanies. This is where I got this idea from.
I don't particularly view this as incompatible with a polemic against the Gnostics. Part of the key of this is to realize that Christophanies are more than just Christ in a human form. For instance, the burning bush...Christophany. The glory of the Lord...Christophany. Thus, the Son was manifested in different ways in the Old Testament, sometimes in a human form, sometimes not in a human form. However, this changed with the incarnation when the Son assumed a human nature. This did not change following his death and resurrection.
Hi, I teach a class on angels and demons in Western Monotheisms. We do a unit on the character of Satan as it developed from the Babylonian captivity to modern pop culture. I'll restrict my answers to what is in the Biblical text.
>The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
There is lots of Jewish mythology imagining the backstory to this verse, imagining fallen "sons of God."
>and they will be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth
The book Birth of Satan by Wray and Mobley is a great introduction to the topic. It's accessible and emant for popular audiences.
Edit: It is worth pointing out that the Hebrew hassatan means accuser, or obstacle.
Edit Edit: Overall, it's probably important to note that Satan is characterized in several different ways throughout the Bible. There isn't a single coherent consensus on who Satan is, or what Satan's relationship with God is like.
There is also an anti-evolution school of thought in Eastern Orthodoxy. See Seraphim Rose's book on Genesis: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Seraphim-Rose/dp/1887904026
(Of course, not all EO share this view. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, for one, was a theistic evolutionist.)
I'm sure there's also anti-evolution Catholics out there (perhaps among the ones who think everything post-Vatican II is apostate?), but they seem to be few.
If you're interested in reading a good work on this subject, there's Christian Smith's 'Bible Made Impossible'.
From the Amazon description:
>Biblicism, an approach to the Bible common among some American evangelicals, emphasizes together the Bible's exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability. Acclaimed sociologist Christian Smith argues that this approach is misguided and unable to live up to its own claims...
oh, my bad. It's from the Holy Bible, Old Testament.
When you have some time, I suggest watching each episode in order: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVmWQSfQeD92BNNvCwfGZkA/videos
Watching a movie seems to be a lot more approachable than dealing with the awkward english in most written Bibles. It gives a decent overview.
Then, if/when you find yourself at a certain point in life asking yourself if this story could actually be inspired by God, I suggest checking out a very detailed and erudite book that asks the same question.
It would probably take less than two weeks to go through all the info. After which, you'll be more educated on the subject than about 95% of people (atheist/agnostic/ or Christian).
Good luck. God bless.
MAGA!
> Christianity is not an evidence-based religion. It's like all other religions, which is faith-based.
While I agree that faith is a necessary component of Christianity, you seem to assert here that faith and evidence are mutually exclusive. I think this is a false dichotomy akin to the oft-repeated "science versus religion" debate topic of the last century.
Faith alone does not a Christian make. True faith always makes itself known (always "discovers itself" in the words of Edwards) in the life of the believer. In other words, faith produces evidence that demonstrates its efficacy. A love for God, a hatred for one's sin, and a spirit that strives to obey God's commands are some examples of this evidence that is apparent not only to the believer but to surrounding people. I certainly see this in my own life.
But this is not to say that one's faith cannot be bolstered by external evidence. In this category we have arguments for the existence of God and the historicity of the events described in the New Testament documents. Chief among these is the resurrection, which Paul identifies as the linchpin of the entire Christian faith.
> The resurrection of Jesus is not historical at all. The historicity of Jesus ends with his crucifixion.
As /u/RighteousDude has already pointed out, we "prove" facts of history not in a binary sense, but with degrees of confidence. Another way to put this is that given the body of evidence (documents, oral testimony, artifacts, and so on), we seek the explanation that can account for all the evidence and do so far better than any competing explanation.
The resurrection should be treated no differently. Given the evidence, virtually all scholars (to include skeptics) agree that 1) Jesus of Nazareth died in Jerusalem by crucifixion, 2) his disciples were transformed from cowards into men who boldly claimed that they saw Jesus after his death and who went on to become martyrs, 3) James (the brother of Jesus and a skeptic) was converted in the same manner, 4) Saul of Tarsus (initially an enemy of Christianity) was converted in the same manner, and 5) the tomb was discovered empty. There are many more facts that can be extracted from the available evidence, but these five are perhaps the most critical, and as mentioned, nearly everyone who studies this subject agrees on them.
So given these facts, what is the best explanation? Many have been proposed over the years, such as ideas that the someone stole the body, or that the disciples fabricated the story, or that Jesus never actually died, or that the disciples hallucinated, or even that this entire story is fiction. But each of these ideas completely fails to account for the whole body of evidence in some way or another. The best explanation that accounts for all the evidence is simply that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that the disciples, James, and Saul were all eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
The case I've summarized above is drawn from the work of Gary Habermas, whose Historical Jesus is an approachable introduction to the life of Jesus that pays special attention to the extra-Biblical sources. If you're interested in a more thorough treatment, N. T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God_ is a great choice.
This is probably overly obvious, but: the Zohar.
If you happen to speak French, I highly recommend de Pauly's translation. If you happen to be able to read the very arcane version of Aramaic in which it was originally written, then that is available readily online and would be the obviously best choice. If you need an English version, I'd say that this one is probably considered the best.
Explain to her that Lee Strobel is not an academic source and that he's loose and lazy with his research.
Suggest that she should get you some university level material. I wish I'd read university level material more recently so I could give you some authors who are better than Lee Strobel to cite to her.
Here's an article on Strobel sucking, though.
Apparently somebody wrote a book about how terrible he is.
If she wants to convert you to Christianity she should at least give Jesus a fighting chance.
/s
On the subject of textual criticism, he has some interesting looking dialogues with John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, but I haven't read them:
The Resurrection of Jesus
and
The Meaning of Jesus
I wish I could meet you all in person to have this discussion. My answer is yes, he existed and was crucified, but because I don't have resources in front of me at the moment, I'll just simply point you to a scholar.
Dr. Gary Habermas is a great scholar on this topic. He wrote this book called The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. In the book he argues for the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion from a historical perspective. Some of his lectures are on youtube.
> how literally is Genesis to be taken?
There are different positions. I and a good number of the Christians here accept evolution. I'd like to offer that there have been Christians that have employed allegorical interpretations of Genesis since the first few hundred years of Christianity. It's not a new idea, and it isn't an idea that developed in reaction to Darwin or evolutionary science.
If you're interested in Christianity but feel as though the Bible might be problematic for you, I'd suggest either looking at Reading the Bible Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg or The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith. They're both very accessible introductions to reading the Bible beyond a fundamentalist paradigm. Borg is more liberal, Smith is more conservative, but both of their approaches are much better than the Bible-as-inerrant-science-textbook-and-instruction-manual-for-life paradigm. I'd also like to point you in the direction of the BioLogos Forum, an ecumenical group of Christians that accept current scientific consensus concerning evolution and cosmology. They have some blogs and resources you might find interesting.
Except there are better ones out there.
When I say Aslan's scholarship isn't there, the issue is he uses flawed scholarship and presents it as fact. Some of this scholarship has actively been discredited, others are widely criticized for methodological issues (using circular logic to back up their conclusions), and is very contentious on some fundamental problems. Aslan makes a lot of claims as if they're truth but which cannot be proven because we lack the evidence to make such conclusions.
I'll be upfront on my bias here: Aslan relies on 19th century German scholarship and the Jesus Seminar and I simply think these sources of the historical Jesus are not sound. I contend that the streams of scholarship he relies upon tends to present speculation as fact (and a lot of the speculation has been treated as fact). The Jesus Seminar in particular is roundly criticized for using circular logic to make conclusions. I think these critiques are fair and do suggest that the conclusions of the wider Jesus Seminar should be handled as suspect. I believe archeological evidence disproves assumptions made by the Jesus Seminar when it comes to aging texts. This matters because the Jesus Seminar went through texts and voted on each one's authenticity based on their unproven assumptions -- deeming passages inauthentic (and thus later additions) based on criteria that were unproven and perhaps even disproven.
Aslan is a bad starting point because he uses questionable scholarship, doesn't question it, and then presents this "historical" portrait of Jesus based on his reading of this scholarship. Scholarship which archeological evidence actively contradicts at times.
I haven't read this book, but I've read some of his articles, and E.P. Sanders is commonly seen as a good starting point who makes good use of archeological evidence to draw conclusions.
N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg co-author a book which goes through various aspects of the search for the historical Jesus. Wright and Borg are friends (and I think went to school together? They both had the same mentor, anyhow) but have very different views. Wright is highly critical of the Jesus Seminar, Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar but is also a bit of an outlier due to his more mystical understanding.
The point is that there's much better starting points. I think any of the links I've provided are good ones. But Aslan simply because if Aslan is your jumping off point, you're mostly going to get scholarship that he agreed with to make his point.
I got kind of lazy with the links, but anyways here is my collection of Christianity related books, links etc.
Listening:
Books:
Links
Rappin' With Jesus: The Good News According to the Four Brothers
Your ‘friend’ is waging a war for your soul - decide whether you wish to engage or disengage? If you do continue to have these conversations and specifically with regards Stobel’s book, ask him:
Was it the content of this book that made you believe the Roman Catholic Religion?
If it wasn’t what convinced him, why should you find it convincing?
But if he claims the book as his reason, only agree to read it if you both read it in conjunction with Price’s book.
The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes Lee Strobel
>Dec 30, 2012 · The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel. ... Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case ...
I’m sure you’ll be able to find a cheap copy on the internet. I believe there is also a YouTube interview with the author and also search YouTube for Street Epistemology videos.
I've really been wanting to read this edition of The Zohar (linked below). It's not a bible but rather an ancient commentary on the 5 books of Moses. It sounds like it might be sort of what you are looking for ie. an occult guide to (some of) the old testament.
https://www.amazon.com/Zohar-Pritzker-Vol-1/dp/0804747474/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517446132&sr=1-3&keywords=zohar
"The Zohar is a collection of commentaries on the Torah, intended to guide people who have already achieved high spiritual degrees to the root (origin) of their souls. To those without spiritual attainment, The Zohar reads like a collection of allegories and legends that can be interpreted and perceived differently by each individual. But to those with spiritual attainment, i.e. Kabbalists, The Zohar is a practical guide to inner actions that one performs in order to discover deeper, higher states of perception and sensation."
When I was leaving the church, while researching Jesus and the story origins, I found this whole theory that Jesus Christ was made up by the Romans to instill order and to control the people, and it fascinated me. It seems even more relevant these days considering very modern examples of the cult of personality seen surround Trump right now.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/693817/Jesus-Christ-HOAX-Biblical-christianity-roman-empire
"The scholar argues that at the time, Jewish sects in Palestine were awaiting a ‘warrior Messiah’, which became an increasing problem after the Roman Empire failed to deal with the problem with traditional means.
As a result, the rulers resorted to psychological warfare which would appear to give the citizens what they wanted, while at the same time making sure they followed their rules."
Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
We already have a script:
Drunk with Blood: God's Killings in the Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/0988245116/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_o92VBbGA5BMYZ
a nice nun did the research to see who wrote what in the bible, and wrote a biography of the bible. that may help to see the man-made in christianity.
Are you referring to Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ"? There was a rebuttal book called "The Case Against the Case for Christ", but it's super heavy handed, and the author is one the fringe of scholarship, so probably a turn off to your friend.
I agree with the other's who have recommended Ehrman's books. His newest one 'How Jesus Became God" would probably be an eye-opener. I really don't think modern Christians have a clue how diverse beliefs were in the earliest years of the church.
Besides Clowney and the Simeon Trust (those two are probably your best resources):
And two others that I've heard good things about, but not read myself:
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
a GREAT book by John Allegro that if you are at all interested in this type of stuff I would 100% recommend. Whether it's true or not I'm not going to speculate, but there is some very interesting "evidence" (evidence in quotes since he is using paintings and the bible for reference) that seems to support his theory.
also as a follow up, by Jan Irving and directly reviewing and critiquing The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is: The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity
There are also some other books on amazon that i have not read but that seem to fit your description:
For all things science and religion I recommend: Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga and Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart (please forgive the title, it was the editor's choice not his).
For the "problem" of Evil I suggest God, Freedom, and Evil again by Plantinga and Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright.
As a general primer on theology and philosophy go look at Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP
MorganMoreland (not the banking institution) and William Lane Craig.I have a book recommendation for you. It’s a bit of an older book, but it is beyond excellent: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions..
Maybe it can bring you and your husband closer together :)
David Murray has a very readable book - Jesus On Every Page that might help.
Uh, pretty much all of them. But some gems:
> The New Testament is far and away the best-attested manuscript from antiquity. The next best is Homer’s “Illiad,” for which our earliest extant copy was scribed 500 years after the original writing. For the New Testament, that time lapse is less than 50 years.
She offers no facts whatsoever here. On the contrary, scholars who actually research the bible for a living have shown that this is patently false. See Bart Ehrman or Karen Armstrong for examples.
> While the four Gospel writers chose different events of Jesus’ life to write about, they all gave a clear description of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.
No, they all gave conflicting accounts of important details surrounding his death and resurrection. All one has to do is read the relevant parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to see this. You'd think she's never actually read the bible before.
No questions but you should check these books out!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371438304&sr=8-1&keywords=sacred+mushroom+and+the+cross
http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Mushroom-Judeo-Christianity-re-evaluation/dp/0982556209/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371438304&sr=8-2&keywords=sacred+mushroom+and+the+cross
Drunk With Blood: God's Killings in the Bible
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of The Bible
You guys have some good arguments on here, but this argument is not really that strong.
For example: http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Made-Impossible-Biblicism-Evangelical/dp/1587433036
Dr. Christian Smith (Sociologist at Notre Dame) argues that a literalist reading of the Bible (like the vast majority of Evangelicals) is absurd. Yet, he still maintains a very strong view of the Bible.
I think this argument sounds nice to people who want it to be. I don't think it's actually a solid argument.
Yes, illogic does infuriate me. I try to work on that.
In an ideal world, no one would be murdered, unfortunately I do not have the power to create an ideal world. That does, however, fall into your god's wheelhouse.
I am not suggesting that any government is higher than God, mainly because I do not think God exists. What I mean is that the US government had limited options and it chose, correctly or incorrectly as it may be, what they thought the best option. If there is an omnipotent God, it would not have limited options, and therefore could create a state of affairs in which there is no murder, no evil at all. God, having failed to do this, is either immoral, impotent, or nonexistent. I obviously chose the latter, but the god of the Bible is certainly immoral.
I see the human as the most intelligent being that we know of, yes. I think that I am more moral than the god of the Bible, because I would not commit genocide, or kill a man for refusing to impregnate his brother's widow, or demand murder and rape, or sacrifice an innocent in order to absolve humanity of sins which I contrived to be upon their heads. I also think that I am more moral than any omnipotent being which might exist (although I do not believe in one), because if I had the power, there would be no evil. If God knows all and can do all, then he has seen children raped by his own vicars on earth, and allowed it to continue. If I could stop a child from being raped, I would. Evidently the being that you worship has not even that much moral fortitude. Despite this, I do not see how I cause the responsibility for all murder and death to be upon my own head, as I only said that I would prevent all these things if I had the power which you profess your god to have. Humanity as a whole is master of itself, but that does not mean that each human is the master of humanity. I am responsible for that which I have done and failed to do; no more, no less.
In what way do I perpetuate murder? Certainly not be living in a country which was once governed, though no longer, by people who took a certain action. I abhor many things my government does, yet I have not the power to stop it, again something your God should be able to do.
> Source, please.
The Bible, broadly, but I didn't calculate it Steve Wells did.
>very concerned for the sick and needy
Um... Only if they were Jewish.
There's a great book that focuses on the moral conduct of god and jesus in the bible called "God Hates You, Hate Him Back" which demonstrates that the holy trinity are hateful, racist, misogynistic warmongers. Of course, the people who claim jesus was a good bloke haven't read the bible.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Hates-Hate-Back-International/dp/095642760X
> While I certainly agree that there is value in looking at things in a new light to see a new truth, all too often people do not actually read the actual source material and instead read modern interpretations which are fallacious, and misleading.
Sounds like we'd get along. :)
In the Jewish tradition many English speaking practitioners happily accepted Michael Berg's translation of The Zohar as being canonical.
Luckily a scholar with more of an academic eye grounded in Aramaic named Daniel Matt was willing to spend the better part of a decade trying to capture the nuanced almost poetical nature of the texts for an English audience.
This gets to a point that I think Jorge Luis Borges perfectly described in his short story 'An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain' and 'Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'.
The first short explores the idea that the same book may tell many stories or that there is only one story iterated infinitely as a sort of synecdoche. The second portrays how translations are in many ways whole new works that never fully capture the original's essence, somewhat similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem.
To illustrate this look at a single simple Hebrew word that has shaped the better part of the last 2000 years of Western civilization: יֵשׁוּעַ. Most westerners think the correct pronunciation of this word is Jesus. Yeshua is far closer to the truth, but even then it doesn't entirely capture the full Hebrew vocalization on the vowels/nikkud.
How did this happen? The name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) comes from Joshua's Hebrew name, Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) which sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (e.g., 1 Chron. 24:11; Neh. 8:17). Yeshua, when transliterated into Greek, comes out as ᾽Ιησοῦς (pronounced YAY-soos), with the final sigma being necessary in the nominative case to designate a proper name. In old English, the "y" sound was rendered as "j," and thus we obtain "Jesus".
Put another way all interpretations and translations are necessarily corruptions.
> As an aside I have not read much re; Kabbalah, do you have a recommendation of a good book?
The tradition spans everything from neoplatonism, gnosticism, hermetica, to pythagorean mysticism. It wouldn't be exaggerating to say Kabbalah is the thread that ties together almost all of western esotericism.
There are a number of popular documentaries that give a general overview without being too inaccurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuSPtXG5dg
Rav. Michael Laitman's protege, Anthony Kosinec, does a nice job as well,
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbalah-video-clips/kabbalah-revealed-a-basic-overview
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does a stellar job summarizing the traditional Jewish take on Kabbalah in his 1991 book "Inner Space." The book doesn't convey the feeling, however, of what it means to be really "in" the tradition.
The closest thing I think I can share to give a sense of what I'm getting at is this little paper.
Other than that though unless a person has any experience with lucid dreaming or out of body experiences, I am not sure anything I say will make any sense. Kaplan wrote two books, "Jewish Meditation, A Practical Guide" and "Meditation and the Bible", with the hopes that others could have the same sorts of lived experiences. Like anything, though, it requires a little practice. :)
Maybe Rappin' With Jesus: The Good News According to the Four Brothers
#3 but with #1
>John 5:39,46 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me... For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me."
>
>Luke 24:44 "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
I recommend looking at works by Estelle and Fesko for some good Christological expositions of certain OT sections. I've heard Jesus on Every Page is a good starter, but I haven't picked it up myself.
I recently read Salvation Through Judgment and Mercy: The Gospel According to Jonah by Estelle. The way he reveals Christ in that book is stunning.
Currently reading and enjoying Margaret Barker’s The Great Angel .
>hat is the burden of proof, which you have either purposefully mischaracterized or are ignorant of. I did not say it lies on someone claiming something exists, I said it lies on someone claiming a positive. It is clear that the existence of god is a positive claim, and if you are unwilling to accept that I am interested why that is.
If I claim "The world outside my mind is real", that is a definitive positive statement.
Of course if you mean "positive statement" as "empirically verifiable" then the claim "God exists" is not necessaruly a positive statement as there are many truths (eg. mathematical truths) that are not necessarily empirically verifiable.
...
>you claim god to be everything that is, and that is your only claim, then this is just a semantic debate, but if you then go on to claim that god is the biblical god, you must prove this.
That's not what Ipsum Esse Subsistens means (it's not pantheism) and there is plenty of works that relate to the God of classical theism (which holds this position) to the biblical God.
Since, again, it's not a topic explored in a few sentences (or even a few pages really) I will direct you to Eleonore Stump's book on the subject.
...
>You have not provided an argument for the positive, and so there is not much to do here until you do. You have referenced many people but I think you are only writing so much to give an impression of credibility/intelligence rather than provide a direct case for God's existence.
As I said it's not a topic explored in a few sentences. I gave you the literature to explore.
Are you interested in learning something, or are you here just to win pointless debates on the internet? No one is going be convinced by a short proof one cuts down to size for reddit and I am not even going to waste my time on it.There are better ways to learn that and there are people who can explain it better than I could here, so I defer to them.
....
>are only writing so much to give an impression of credibility/intelligence rather than provide a direct case for God's existence.
Stop nonsense rhetorical tricks. Either put in the work and read the material or don't.
Point of a discussion might be learning something new, including learning about new literature on a topic one was completely unaware of before. If you think it's only about winning arguments, then have it you can win, if it makes you happy.
A few book suggestions you might not get elsewhere:
The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price — a fresh translation of the New Testament plus twenty-seven other early Christian documents and apocrypha.
Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman — a more popular-level discussion of early Christian texts (but does not include the texts themselves).
The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought — seems comprehensive, but I haven't read it yet. It's rather expensive.
One Biblical scholar and author who is very popular among Mormons (though she is not one) is Margaret Barker. Her focus is on the influence of temple theology and Jewish polytheism in the formation of Christianity. Her books include The Great Angel and The Great High Priest. They are scholarly reading and might be difficult for the casual reader to follow.
If you listen to podcasts, Robert Price ("the Bible Geek") and Mark Goodacre both have popular podcasts on the New Testament and early Christianity. The former was a Jesus Seminar member and has some fairly radical views; the latter is a more conservative evangelical.
If you're interested in a distinctly Christian (rather than broadly theist) take on the Problem of Evil, N. T. Wright's Evil and the Justice of God is a good book.
God Hates you, Hate Him Back
I highly recommend this one, if simply reading the bible itself doesn't turn him into an atheist.
I will have to add this one to my set. I saw this on reddit a couple years ago and bought it. It's pretty dope cause Jesus is one down dude.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict-Volume/dp/0840743785
there is a theory out there that jesus was invented by the roman ruling class.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0059912OA?btkr=1
For sure. Margaret Barker, for one, argues that the divine counsil with a high god and lesser gods gets transformed into God and the angels. Some not-really-monotheistic traditions in first century Judaism, in her argument, set the stage for Jesus worship as a Great Angel, a position that was roughly equivalent to what had been Yhwh's position in the divine counsil.
The amazon.com book reviews offer a lot of insight... here's a snippet from one of them:
"This book serves only to give false confidence to those who already believe. As an honest seeker for truth, it offers nothing."
You might want to read this.
You might find THIS BOOK an interesting read.
Well theistic philosophers (who are part of the Abrahamic religions) tend to think the God of the Philosophers is the God of the Bible. One book I have heard of that is good on this is this one:
The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers (Aquinas Lecture) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0874621895/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_DdLEybVKH5GQ7
I haven't read it but I think it will be a good source for you to explore this question. The book defends the idea that the Philosophers God and Bible God can be reconciled.
I also recommend reading question 1 of Aquinas's Prima Pars of the Summa: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm. A good amount of it deals with this question.
I'd suggest reading Crucifixion of the Warrior God or the popular version, Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence by Gregory Boyd. You can also watch an overview. Basically, in light of the Revelation of Christ on the Cross, as the ultimate Revelation, we must look at God through Jesus. To answer your question, God allowed the Israelites to read Him into things.
Do not twist scripture, which says that El Elyon gave Israel to his angelic son or "god" as Yahweh's inheritance or portion. "The sons of Adam are not angels/gods. They are the nationless people who needed to be assigned nations with angelic overseers. He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God [angels/angelic council]; While _the Lord's own portion was Jacob - HIs hereditary share was Israel". Just as Adam's descendents are portioned nations, so too does the Most High portion a nation, Israel, to the Lord.
Do not twist scripture, which describes Yahweh as striding "in the midst of the gods" as do the Psalms.
Please familiarize yourself with Yahweh as Israel's Great Angel:
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israels-Second/dp/0664253954/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518406554&sr=1-4&keywords=margaret+barker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUkhWBKCuXc
This is an amazing resource. Highly recommended. The authors other book, Drunk With Blood is another good read.
Bart Ehrman is wrong.
I recommend the book Nailed for a short book that goes into a detailed analysis of that claim and shows that it is very misleading.
Edit:
And of course... What difference does it make? Like everyone else says, the number and/or age of existing copies is meaningless. If the book does not make supernatural claims, then it is reasonable to take the book at face value. That does not mean assuming it is true-- I don't assume that the mythical beasts in the Illiad are true just because Homer wrote about them, and even anything presented as history would need to be backed up by additional sources or evidence-- but it is fine to read Plato as a Philosophy book or the Odyssey as a great adventure.
Matthew, since you seem to like conspiracies, what if Jesus was invented by the most powerful government at the time to control the Jews? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0059912OA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You should read this book and get back to me.
This is one of my passions, so get ready.
Let's play a game; you pick any passage in 1 Samuel, and I will tell you how it is about Christ.
There are many more ways that the OT is about Jesus than just "messianic" and "allegory." But, I do want to caveat - verses and chapters, though helpful, are largely arbitrary units. I would nuance this to say that every "passage" is about Jesus - every independent literary unit. So no Jesus is not in every word, or every verse, or sometimes not even in every chapter, but he is what every passage is ultimately about.
If you haven't studied them, I would encourage you to consider a few NT passages - how Jesus considers the theme of the OT:
John 5:39-40: "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."
Luke 24:25-17: "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Or, maybe more on the nose, take a look at how the NT interprets OT passages that aren't "messianic."
Like Matthew 2:13-15, quoting Hosea 11:1 - in context clearly about Israel and not Jesus. But Matthew seems to think it is! If you read and wrestle with this article, you'll have a great start to understanding how the NT interprets the OT.
Following up on Matthew 2, John 12's use of Isaiah 6, or 1 Corinthians 10's use of much of the Exodus narrative - both use OT passages that are not evidently about Christ but prove to be.
If you're curious, I recommend two books: David Murray's "Jesus on Every Page" is a popular level book, and Sidney Greidanus' "Preaching Christ from the Old Testament" is more academic and will give a christocentric method for interpreting the OT.
I'm not the one down voting you btw..
More for you:
http://www.amazon.com/Moshe-Idel/e/B001HCWWME
http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Dan/e/B000APHXZ0
http://www.amazon.com/Zohar-Pritzker-Vol-1/dp/0804747474
There's obvious multiple ways to go about the problem of evil. I did a graduate course in philosophy of religion with an emphasis in problem of evil, so this will be influenced as a philosophical approach, but I'd recommend looking at three resources.
I know that NT Wright has a book on the subject which is probably worth looking into. And Carson and Hauerwas also address it from the theological perspective.
I hope this is helpful.
> God killed people in the OT
You may be very interested in this book.
There's much more evidence of mushrooms being connected to ancient spiritual practices the world over than MJ. (That said obviously in some cultures like ancient India MJ was a huge part of it.)
Ancient Egypt, Aztec Civilization and Christianity are all steeped in mushrooms. (Along with MANY others. Of course, Santa Clause is also mushroom based :) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/opinion/santa-christmas-mushrooms.html )
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/04/the-sacred-mushroom-and-cross-by-john.html
http://en.psilosophy.info/the_entheomycological_origin_of_egyptian_crowns_and_the_esoteric_underpinnings_of_egyptian_religion.html
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mushroom-Evidence-Mushrooms-Judeo-Christianity/dp/0982556209
https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S850R5K6NZ18DKSJSHN8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_use_of_entheogens
Well technically those records from the mid 100s are saying that christians exist, and they did. The epistles of Paul were written in the 50s, the gospel of Mark written in the 70s, Matthew and Luke written in the 80s or 90s, and John, the revelation of another John, the revelation of Peter, and the ascension of Isaiah and many other Christian stories written in the 100s to the 300s before the ecumenical councils were started in 325 when they decided to narrow down Jesus eventually settling on the trinity by the fourth ecumenical council pushing out Gnosticism like the gospel of Thomas, Marcion, and Origen as well as Aryanism, Nestorianism and other "heresies" leading to the church of the East, Coptics and other early schisms. After the next four councils they came to the idea about iconoclasm where the Eastern Orthodoxy was against the use of iconography and the Catholics stuck with icons such as the crucifix, statues of Mary, and other icons. This was all by the time of the 600s.
Soon after this time the orthodox christians, Coptics, Islam and other sects went their own ways. In Islam Jesus is the chosen human messiah but not the son of God nor was he crucified before his ascension. In some Eastern religions Jesus is sometimes seen as another transcendent beings like the Buddha and Buddha is sometimes seen as a reincarnation of Vishnu in some forms of Hinduism.
Zoroastrianism heavily influenced monotheism and the traits of the supreme god found in most abrahamic religions. It added the concept of heaven and hell. It added armageddon. Many forms of Christianity didn't start out believing in an afterlife but the Catholic concept of heaven, hell, and purgatory was under question by Martin Luther especially the concepts of the church selling something that allows them to skip purgatory and changing the message of the bible from the originally intended meaning. As a result most protestant religions don't have a complicated hierarchy with bishops, archbishops, popes, and such but they'll have a pastor and perhaps deacons and that's about it. The eastern orthodoxy has a few of their ecumenical decisions but the Catholics kept it going up until they went from 7 to 21 with 15 or 16 being related to the protestants being excommunicated and doomed to hell. In the first Vatican council (ecumenical council decision #20) the church rejects rationalism, materialism, and atheism and anything that could cause problems with the church doctrines. More recently (since the 1960s) they have gradually adjusted to science and with the removal of hell and the acceptance of evolution and the ongoing pedophilia the church is falling apart and might again break into multiple denominations.
The protestants went on another path and in the 1900s the rise of fundamental literalism led to a resurgence of young earth creationism and flat earthers while just a few decades earlier the seventh day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah witnesses and Baha'i came out of the various religions holding fast to creationism and the existence of Jesus.
While these beliefs account for the majority of held religious beliefs (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Zoroastrianism) only the abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i rely on Jesus being historical. Scholars who hold these beliefs will claim they have evidence that Jesus matches their religious idea such as an empty tomb pointing to a resurrection. The scholars who try to establish historicity on either side will fall back to some random Jewish rabbi, perhaps Jesus ben Annanias or Yeshua ben Yosef who was a preacher mulch life the more established John the Baptist and like John was killed and remained dead while his followers shared their memory of him by word of mouth so that he gradually gets more and more absurd and magical by the time the gospels were written. Others will point out that Jesus was a spiritual being probably hundreds of years before the first century when Paul, Peter, Timothy, and others spoke of their visions (related to gnostic Christianity) and it was another couple decades before a Greek speaker unfamiliar with Judaism and the geography of the region wrote the gospel of Mark. Other stories were also in circulation in the following decades such as the Q document so the authors of Matthew and Luke took the various gospels at the time like Mark, Q, and possibly a couple others and combined them with the contradictory birth narratives I pointed out previously. The kept the same crucifixion but added a resurrection which was later added to mark and gave Judas different reasons for betraying Jesus. Then in the next five decades wildly different concepts of Jesus arose such as an attempt to state he was just an ordinary person that was possessed by the son of God. The gospel of John, using gospels like the gospel of Thomas and a sayings gospel was written so that he became more of a superman character. He left off the birth narrative starting with the popular baptism cult of John the Baptist and this time he wasn't turned in by Judas at all but instead told Judas and his army that he is the one they seek. After this there were various acts of the apostles and revelations about Armageddon and various apocrypha that the early church leaders decided to leave out so that they could say Jesus was born to a virgin, died by crucifixion, and had a bodily resurrection from the dead. They left behind just enough contradictions that they decided upon the trinity so that he could be an eternal being equal to the father and spirit and after the death of the son the holy spirit is released to the apostles to spread to the early church.
Basically by the 300s there was a dominant sect holding to a divine human Jesus and that was the sect that set up the early church considering everything else to be a heresy including Islam when it rose up out of Zoroastrianism and Nestorian Christianity. Throughout the middle ages they produced a lot of hoaxes like cups, foreskins, pieces of petrified wood, and a shroud. As time went on it was just assumed that Jesus was a historical figure and it was the consensus about 100 years ago. Since then the consensus has come under scrutiny so that Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are at the head of each side of the debate and neither of them hold fast to the gospels being reliable depictions of Jesus nor are the documents that came 100 years later saying that christians exist. There are many people holding many different religions. It doesn't automatically make their beliefs true. Josephus was tampered with by Eusebius and the rest don't really make any claims about a Jesus being real but only relaying what the christians had said about their beliefs such as a messiah who was crucified by Pontius Pilate 100 years ago. By this time everyone who could corroborate his existence had died and while he would have been still alive Philo of Alexandria wouldn't be wondering where he was and Justin Martyr wouldn't be saying that he predated the demigods that were being worshipped by at least 1500 years before Jesus was supposed to have lived.
Here are some books from both sides of the debate:
Richard Carrier: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QSO2S5C/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
(Jesus was probably a spiritual mythical being first and a man later)
Bart Erhman: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0053K28TS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
(Jesus was probably an ordinary man but we can figure out more about the historical Jesus)
Robert Price: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J0OPUZM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
(Debunking the religious apologetics put forth by Lee Strobel)
Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01863JLK2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
(Defending the divine human Jesus of Christianity)
I'll let you decide.
really? Tell me more. I
onlyhave Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Halleys, tektonics is another good site (that I haven't delved into too much). I never really looked into it until I was ready to look at it from an informed perspective, if these are your sources, they are mine as well (in fact I quoted two of his sources in my blurb). Until I was able to use negative inference, reason, and informed research to posit a secular hypothesis at early Christianity, I was scared to delve into a possible Sophist interpretation of events. I think after reading a few weeks of early Greek thought, I found the bed of ideas that birthed Christianity outside of dates and names. There may have been a historical Jesus, but I'd like to subtract all the pre existing ideas before I meet him.Not currently YEC, but was, and an Orthodox guy that'll probably be a saint was definitely one. I refer to Seraphim Rose. I believe his main argument was that there was evidence the church fathers believed in a literal YEC, and we should follow their lead. He wrote a book about it. As you can see it is quite expensive, but I suppose you can read reviews/sum ups to get the gist.
My response would be that the Fathers probably also believed in a geocentric model and a flat earth, and one of them seemed to believe the Phoenix was an actual bird, so I wouldn't limit my understanding of the world according to the letter of the fathers. Perhaps he'd reply that they presented it in such a way that it was vital to their faith/theology. Unfortunately I've heard (here) that a lot of Seraphim's followers basically are saying the same things the protestants have been saying for however many years YEC has been a thing.
So, in conclusion, there are some Orthodox believers that are YEC. Some of them have a unique take on it by appealing to the early fathers, but some just go the tired old protestant route. Since I'm not YEC I don't buy the father thing either, but if you're YEC you might want to check out what the Orthodox who happened to be YEC have to say.
Check out the book "The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots" by T.J. Wray and Gregory Mobley. It does a good job of tracing the evolution of the idea Satan from its Jewish roots to the modern anti-force it is supposed to be today.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Birth-Satan-Tracing-Biblical/dp/1403969337
When you look at certain passages of the New Testament with understanding that Satan is fulfilling an appointed role, they take on a different character. A good example is Luke 4:1-13 where Jesus is tempted in the desert. Instead reading it as Satan (written as "the devil" in the passage) as the incarnation of evil attempting to sway Jesus over to his side, he becomes instead an emissary of God fulfilling his duties as the accuser. He is sent to test Jesus' human will to find out whether it is in line with his divine will -- the will of God. I like how the ASV/WEB translation of the passage ends using the word "completed", as in he completed his assigned duty to test Jesus. "When the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until another time."
> Yea, I would. Labeling things as "spiritual" is just furthering me in samsara. Everyone's definition of "spiritual" is different anyways.
I have naturally been born with this disposition, and have had it enforced through others such as Andrew Weil (check out his book Natural Mind).
Also, religions used mushrooms etc. Here's something you should look at for example if you've not already looked into these matters:
https://www.amazon.ca/Holy-Mushroom-Judeo-Christianity-re-evaluation-Christianity/dp/0982556209
>So your definition of "spiritual" is relieving pain? Interesting.
In a way yes - but also in having great significance to your point of experience or observation, your physical well being (and mental and spiritual).
https://www.amazon.com/Reality-God-Problem-Evil/dp/082649241X
https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Thought-Thomas-Aquinas-Renaissance/dp/0813209838/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503056834&sr=1-1&keywords=Wippel
https://www.amazon.com/Aquinass-Way-God-Proof-Essentia/dp/0190224800/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503056853&sr=1-1&keywords=Gaven+Kerr
https://www.amazon.com/God-Bible-Philosophers-Aquinas-Lecture/dp/0874621895/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0874621895&pd_rd_r=3WJVB31GTFYYS881ZANK&pd_rd_w=ua9He&pd_rd_wg=z5cMA&psc=1&refRID=3WJVB31GTFYYS881ZANK
Good news! It appears that Boyd is releasing a popular summary of these books.
Yes, but the orthodox teaching of creation isn't bared out in what is passed off as creationism.
Saraphim Rose wrote a book which outlines it
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026
I went to church just today (well, yesterday in my time zone), and I can tell you about my visit.
It was a Sunday morning service at a rather liberal (for a Southern US college town) church. The service was held in a gymnasium (which was an annex to the church building proper) and had pretty decent chairs. The songs were projected onto giant screens behind the podium, so there were no shockers where people started singing and I looked out of place because I didn't know the words (and I know exactly how you felt: Being a non-Catholic in a Catholic service is stressful!)
The sermon was rather bland. I'm used to visiting my parents' church, which is a rural, white-bred, fire-and-brimstone congregation where the preacher likes to completely derail his sermon to denounce the issue du jour and piss me off. This preacher just did the old "admonish and encourage" speech right before the men who organize mission work got up to explain a survey they would be doing.
Honestly, through it, I felt nothing. The sermon was not stimulating and I don't feel that I learned anything from it that I didn't know before. During Bible class, I read Ceasar's Messiah while the everybody else watched a video about how men and women communicate in marriage (they were building up to Fireproof in three weeks in this young, married couples class).
BenMargarine I will not belittle you but I would suggest a book to you. It is available on Kindle or iPad. Called Nailed, Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed. You may believe all you wish but IMHO that warm fuzzy feeling you get. "Just a warm fuzzy feeling"
You’re welcome
NT Wright also wrote a book on the problem of evil from a biblical perspective.
Evil and the Justice of God https://www.amazon.com/dp/083083415X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_YmB0DbDWQJMC4
You may want to read Drunk With Blood: God's Killings in the Bible, a compilation of all the murders (and mass murders, genocides, etc) in the Bible.
For starters, I'd recommend the following to get a taste of the issues we have to wrestle with when thinking about resurrection:
Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes - here is an author who is almost immediately dismissed by the status quo of Christianity as being a crazy man. But in this book, he has been incredibly thorough in presenting evidence for his thesis. I know he writes other books where he speaks more generally, and I think that conservatives tend to seize this as an opportunity to attack without actually addressing the things he brings up in books like this one. Also by the same author, and related to this topic, you should check out:
The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic
Resurrection: Myth or Reality?
Related to Paul, you should read:
The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon
There are three books by this duo, and they are all fantastic - very thorough, meticulous, and yet easy to read and understand. Related to this topic, you'd want to read:
The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Final Days in Jerusalem
Another great book to understand where the debates lie in Jesus scholarship would be:
The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
These are really "get your feet wet" books. But really, one of the biggest problems with theology these days, I feel, is that it is all too often done without even an attempt to connect with science. We think we can argue "the Bible says" and stop there - as if that implies "so therefore this is what we have to believe". This is generally how scholars like N.T. Wright operate - they spend all kinds of effort laying out what the language says, but never really get into the questions of whether these things are tenable with today's knowledge of science, whether or not Paul actually might not have been the author of such things, whether there are contradictions between the gospels (or some of the writings attributed to Paul), etc. With scholars like Wright, it's just assumed that everything which was said was reliable and came from the actual people we have long said it came from - we never have to think about problems like science and historical methodology.
But if you really want to understand the problems surrounding resurrection, I think you need to study what science has to say about consciousness. A few books that come to mind off the top of my head:
The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness
And if you're really up for some fun with science and the question of eternity:
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
The Self-Aware Universe
Please note: I don't think any of these books close the questions. They provide possibilities, for sure, and do so in a way that thoroughly wrestles with the evidence, logical problems, etc. But no one can prove or disprove afterlife, it seems. However, there are certainly many afterlife theories which simply do not work with modern science - literal bodily resurrection being one of them (if we're all going to be resurrected into physical bodies, how is our limited earth that is already stretched to the point of breaking going to support all those resurrected beings?).
Both of these books discuss it:
A History of God
The Bible: a biography
You could also take a look at Crucifixion of the Warrior God, by Gregory Boyd if you like really academic works, or Cross Vision, by Gregory Boyd if you prefer something aimed more at laypeople. Both books deal with the same thesis and differ only in how detailed it gets.
If you prefer podcasts Homebrewed Christianity has an episode talking to Boyd about those books that will give you an overview of them.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0059912OA/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o05_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> ...a TRUE Christian believes the Bible literally in it's entirety.
Then Paul was clearly not a true Christian.
You really should read at least this article, if not the book it comes from.
Other books worth reading are Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament and The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong.
The Bible is clearly not the book many evangelicals wish it was.
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man isn't the Bible...
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All
Great book by my good friend, David Fitzgerald, national speaker on secularism.
> If you're talking about a phrase in the Bible saying something like "great powerful nations will go to war" being prophecy of WWII or something like that, well I don't know if that's worth my time to discuss quite frankly.
Not at all. That is what I'd call a Nostradmus-like prediction that is so vague it almost certainly could be considered to have come true. The Koran is filled with those.
Some very specific prophecies in the bible:
There are actually hundreds of precise prophecies like this throughout the Bible. Neither the Koran nor the Hindu scriptures have any such internal proofs that they came from an all-knowing diety.
To be honest without being critical... you say you've read the Bible. But if you think the prophecies in it are as vague as "great and power nations will go to war" then you really haven't read it.
Thanks for the offer, but honestly I spent over 5 years studying this and at this point I am very secure in my beliefs. I've read plenty of books on both sides of the issue and am no longer a seeker. I am confident I have found the truth. I hope you value yourself enough to do such an in-depth investigation. For almost 20 years I insisted I was right about Christianity being a joke. But I found out I was wrong. I think you'll find the same if you give it a similar test.
And I'll make a counter offer to you. If you'll agree to read Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" I'll buy it for you.
EDIT: I'll buy it for anyone who wants a copy. Just PM me your contact info and I'll buy it and send it to you.