It's normal to have questions. It's good you're thinking about your religion.

>1 I heard the Bible has been altered (esp. the New Testament) by people so that they can eat pork, drink occasionally, not be circumcised, etc. However, the Quran hasn't. This is why my Muslim friends are all circumcised, don't eat pork, drink, etc. Like the stuff in the Old Testament. Is there any proof that the Bible is unaltered?

The dietary laws found in the OT are strictly for the nation of Israel. Most of them come as a sort of national penance for the idolatry at Sinai and were never meant to followed by the Gentiles. God elected Israel to prepare the world to see what election is grounded in (His gratuitous love). He choose a people who were of no account to demonstrate that when He elects, He does so freely and not because we bring anything to the table. He gave Israel the law to train them so that they would learn to grow accustomed to delighting in following God.

>2 Why did Jesus die for our sins, if anything is possible?

God did not have to become man and dwell among us (John 1.14) and be crucified for our sins. It was nevertheless fitting that He did so. Why? One reason is because it shows us what sort of love God has for us. He's fully invested in His creation. He knew from eternity that when He created this place, He was going to come down here and show His love in the Incarnation and crucifixion.

The Crucifix also inverts the world's expectations about power. Adam and Eve sinned because of pride, preferring themselves to God. So Jesus comes and shows us what true humility looks like (cf. Phil. 2). He doesn't "win" by power (though He could have), but shows His creatures what it looks like to love humbly.

>3 Why does God send us, who He created, to Hell to be eternally tortured if we don't believe (believe in me or I'll torture you)? I'm trying my hardest to believe and be a good Christian, but I have so many unanswered questions and doubts that are getting in the way.

Wouldn't Heaven for someone who does not love God actually be Hell? If they don't love Him now on earth, what makes you think they would enjoy Him in Heaven? It's not a safe assumption that the person who stood before God would automatically enjoy it. God has created creatures with a will because to love Him without being able to will it would be meaningless. It would be a sort of farce on God's part. However, that means some will freely choose to reject Him. If our wills mean anything, then God respects that and doesn't force those people to love Him for eternity (which is what Heaven is). I would read CS Lewis' The Great Divorce.

>4 Will God send those people who are raised in another religion, such as in Thailand (Buddhism), who don't have any external way of being informed of Christianity (like missionaries), to be tortured forever in Hell?

Some Christians believe this is so - that you're just out of luck if you happen not to be exposed to the Gospel. Catholics are not one of those sorts and I can only speak as a Catholic. For us, we follow St. Paul's thinking in Romans 2.14-15. Paul there talks about the natural law which is imprinted on our hearts by virtue of being created in the image of God. The Catechism says that the man who searches for God in another religion and does so earnestly is somehow being prepared for the Gospel (CCC 843) because all truth and goodness come from God. We trust those souls to God's mercy and justice, knowing that He is both.

>5 Why did God put a tree of knowledge if no one could eat from it? Like He purposely put the temptation there, knowing that at least some of us will be tempted to sin, and from there, be eternally damned.

Obedience which comes from love is the mark of the Christian life. CS Lewis' Perelandra does a good job at thinking about this. Basically Lewis says that there are sometimes rules which God gives which do not have a rationale on their own except that God has asked us to follow them. So in Perelandra, the woman is not allowed to live on the fixed land simply because God has asked her not to. By following this rule, however, she grows in love for God. She grows up, understanding what obedience is.

>6 Why does sin and the possibility of being sent to Hell for eternal torture exist, if God loves us more than anything? Doesn't He know that with creating humans, a lot of them will sin?

He does, but He hasn't remained aloof from the situation. Hebrews 4.15 tells us, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." That's beautiful. Think on the Incarnation and the sheer gratuity of God's love in that act. Also see my above answer about hell.

>7 How would He judge agnostics? Like there are so many religions, and uncertainties, that some people will just gather from every religion that there is indeed a God who created us. Like people who follow basic morals like treating others well, but still do sins like, greed, lust (without rape or cheating), sodomy?

We don't know about any particular person who goes to hell. We simply trust God's goodness, His mercy, His justice, etc.

>8 Lust, masturbation, greed - why do those traits seem natural to humans, if they are sins? Like of course it's natural to look at the opposite sex and lust after them, especially when our hormones are raging.

Sin is the distortion of something good. Some women are beautiful. Recognizing their beauty isn't wrong. But sin warps our wills and desires, it warps our inclinations. Adam's and Eve's wills were in accord with their reason, but sin distorts this unity. This is why we do things (like sin) that we wish we did not (cf. Rom. 7). Neither lust, masturbation, nor greed are natural to man - they do not accord with the end for which God has created them (beatitude). Lust is an unhealthy fixation and a distortion of the natural goodness of human sexuality, which is given as a gift. Masturbation is the same - masturbation takes a gift meant for the sake of another (i.e. one's spouse) and misuses it for oneself. It takes something which is meant to be outward looking and makes it isolated. That's not what God created us for. Greed likewise is a disordered desire of goods. Any good thing we see on earth should point us to God, but greed terminates solely in created things and forgets the Creator.

I hope some of that helps.

I'd recommend a number of titles, many of which are free:

Since you already have a foundation in Christian thought, I'd recommend Introduction to Christianity (hint: not actually introductory level) by Joseph Ratzinger. It's pretty theologically dense, but that man is one of the most profound theologians of his generation, and this is his first masterpiece.

If you are interested in morality, particularly in issues of conscience in relationship to subjectivity and objectivity, I strongly recommend Conscience and Truth, by Ratzinger as well (free online).

If you are interested in the contemporary thought of the Catholic Church (we essentially see ourselves as the religion according to reason), I can think of no better volume than a book-length interview Ratzinger gave to Peter Seewald in the late 90's, Salt of the Earth. His words are seriously beautiful.

On the relationship between faith and reason, I'd recommend Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Regensburg address (free!), and John Paul II's Fides et Ratio (free).

If you are interested in the role of religion vis-à-vis politics and public life, I'd think to read Benedict XVI's addresses at Westminster Hall and at The Bundestag (both free), which are considered as among the finest speeches of his pontificate. If you are interested in Catholic social teaching (i.e. morality relating to economics), I'd go with Caritas in Veritate.

If you are interested in Christian theology relating to death, judgment, heaven and hell, I'd recommend no better book than C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, which is a beautiful narrative that explains so well Christian theology relating to the last things.

I'd recommend as a general introduction to what faith means the first encyclical released by Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei (free on the Vatican's website), which was mostly written by his predecessor and offers profound meditations on the nature of Christian faith (read together with the first chapter of Introduction to Christianity, I think one would have a solid understanding of what it actually means to believe).

If you wish to know more about Christian sexual ethics (hint: it's not a decontextualized list of prohibitions, but rather a positive command to love totally), I can think of no better volume than Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility, which is a philosophical-theological volume in which Wojtyla expounds on the "personalistic norm"—i.e. the only proper response to another human being is love, as opposed to "use," which is the treating of another as less than human, as an object (applicable also to employers who treat their employees as automatons).

As you can tell, I'm a pretty big fan of the previous pontificate.

I would thoroughly and enthusiastically recommend the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation of the Bible; specifically The New Oxford Annotated Bible. It is a bible with excellent study notes and important and interesting contextual information included alongside the actual text of the Bible. I did a good amount of research when I wanted to buy a new Bible and I am confident that this is the best Bible that exists in English today. (I mean, Oxford University is a pretty well respected university, right?) If you get this Bible, you'll be sorted for any kind of Bible study. 10/10.

If you don't wish to get this one, i'd definitely still recommend the NRSV as the best English translation, unless you are under about 15 years of age, in which case you might benefit from the New Living Translation (NLT) or The Message: Remix, which is a paraphrase of the whole Bible by a guy called Eugene Peterson.

Do not trust anyone who recommends you to use the King James Version. The King James Version was created in 1611! It is over 400 years old and therefore does not benefit from the advances in scholarship over the past 4 centuries that modern translations do. On top of that, it is written in very hard to understand English comparable to Shakespearean English. Even if it were a trustworthy translation (which it most definitely is not) it would not be worth bothering with simply because of how hard it is to read.
____

Concerning which church to join, I can't really help you there by directing you to a specific place, but make sure that wherever you go does not prioritise adherence to specific doctrines over the value of community. Make sure it is always a place that allows you to ask whatever questions you like and find your own faith- not be forced to conform to someone else's conception of what it should be. Also, every Christian church needs to be active in their local community helping with the physical and emotional needs of people, not just 'preaching the gospel' as if that were all Christians are meant to. A faithful church should be making sure to provide for the needs of the poorest in its community and offer protection and acceptance for the outcasts in it's society. If a church is more focussed on telling you what you shouldn't do rather than what you should do, it probably isn't a great church.

____

If you are just new to Christianity (or even if you're not) please feel free to private message me and we can chat about any questions or whatever you might have and I can share with you whatever wisdom I might have. :D

Peace :)

I've been thinking about this. The works which first pop to mind are probably too technical for general interest as they are written to be read by other professional philosophers. I'm trying to think of what might be interest to the educated person who isn't a Philosophy major.
*****

Peter Kreeft

Peter Kreeft writes a lot of things for a general audience. He is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College. He often speaks at other universities, and has even been part of a debate with a former professor of mine, so he is at least pretty well-known in philosophical circles. He has a bunch of free readings on the "featured readings" and "more featured readings" pages of his site, which also has lectures and such. Here is his author page on Amazon. His books are also mostly intended for a general audience. I've read a handful of them, so if you're thinking of ordering one, or finding it at a library, let me know and I'll give you my two cents. The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things is interesting. He is fairly old, and a lifelong surfer. In that book he draws analogies between the natural pull the ocean has on us and the pull God has on us. He also has many Socrates Meets... books which don't have so much to do with religion, but provide accessible introductions to various philosophers (e.g. Socrates Meets Sartre).
*****

Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga is a very prominent philosopher, and a Christian. Much of his writing is intended for the professional philosophical audience, but some if it might be accessible to a general audience. Here is his Amazon author page. Let me know if you're thinking about checking out any of his stuff. Like I said, a lot of it is more technical than Kreeft's. Also, he is in the analytic tradition, whereas Kreeft is more in the continental tradition. I think that further distances him from the casual reader.

Some of Plantinga's works which might be good:

• God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God is pretty much what it's long title says.
  
  
• I see a brand new book, which I might get myself! It's on a topic which often comes up in this very forum, science and religion. (Anybody want to read it with me?!) Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Publisher's blurb:
  
  >This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
  
  *****
  

  Søren Kierkegaard
  

  
  If you're thinking more historically, I think Kierkegaard can be very interesting. He is considered by many to be a proto-existentialist (a sort of existentialist before existentialism existed as a movement). Fear and Trembling is relatively easy to read, short, and probably his most read work. I recommend it. Also, here is his Amazon author page.
  
  *****
  

  Others
  

  
  Those three were just a few of the many Christian philosophers I find interesting. There are a whole lot more, some more accessible than others to a general audience. This is still just a fraction of the historical Christian philosophical scene, but I think it will give you a good start. These are all of them off of the top of my head whom I have studied to some extent.
  
  

  Contemporary:
  

  
  

• John Hick (Amazon) (Website) (Wiki): Primarily a philosopher of religion and theologian, comes from a rather liberal, mystic Christian perspective.
  
  
• Bas van Fraassen (Wiki): Doesn't actually do much on religion, just a prominent philosopher who happens to be a theist. In fact, many would not guess him to be a theist due to his ultra-empiricism.
  
  
• Peter van Inwagen (Wiki): A prominent philosopher in both philosophy of religion, and other areas. Some would argue he's even a better philosopher than Plantinga (heresy among some Christian philosophers, lol).
  
  
• J.P. Moreland (Wiki): Christian philosopher, does a lot of apologetics.
  
  
• William Lane Craig (Wiki): Well-known, but not well-liked by many philosophers, does a lot of apologetics and travels the world doing public debates with atheists. Has also done a good deal of publishing.
  
  
• Cornell West (Wiki): Awesome guy!
  
  
• Richard Swinburne: (Wiki) (Amazon Author Page): Has written many books more geared towards a general audience I believe.
  
  

  Historical
  

  
  

• Francis of Assisi
  
  
• Augustine of Hippo
  
  
• Peter Abelard
  
  
• Thomas Aquinas
  
  
• Renee Descartes
  
  
• John Locke
  
  
• George Berkeley
  
  
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
  
  
• Blaise Pascal
  
  
• Johann Gotlieb Fichte
  
  
• Immanuel Kant
  
  
• William James: One badass mo'fo in my humble opinion. Early twentieth century American philosopher, part of the pragmatist school, and a defender of faith.
  
  ****
  Author's Note: I've been working on this entry for about 45 minutes now. I hope someone reads some of it. Time for a break. If you have any questions, or wanna talk philosophy, let me know, it's in my blood.*
  
  

The freedom to be good is the true nature of the kind of freedom God intended for us, the freedom to be good, and to love as we are loved. It does not have to involve a duality of good and evil.

C.S. Lewis is pretty good, but his theology pales in comparison to Deitrich Bonheoffer's "The Cost of Discipleship".

We ought to consider the nature of the fall (and the provision for it's resolution in time and history), as trying to be like God (when that was already our true state of being to begin with ie: made in God's image and walking hand in hand with God in paradise), and eating of the tree of the duality of the knowledge of good and evil or standing as if in judgement of it. This threw us out of paradise and out of childlike obedience to the goodness of God.

Now what is the cross of Jesus Christ if it is not also the Tree of Life, as the resolution to the age old problem of evil?

This doesn't make us perfect or free from sin, but it invites us to become ever more involved in a childlike obedience to the law of life and love, and that's true life as we were meant and created to live it. There's no trying to be good in order not to be bad, in it.

There is no evil in Christ or any necessity or justification for it.

Freedom then has nothing to do with choosing between good and evil. That's a lie.

There's a paradox here involving free will, in so far as we are meant to be under the control of the Spirit which is radically free, but for which there is no inclination towards sin or evil.

LOSS of freedom occurs when we buy into the lie that freedom is a choice between good and evil. That's the tempter's first and last lie, that and the idea of trying to be God (as judge of good and evil), or to try to edge God out of the equation when we were created, by God, to be in relationship with God who is forever transcedent, although innerent.

I think it's poor theology on Lewis' part to see it like this, which retains the duality.

The weeds that were sown in the field will eventually be bundled up and throw away or burned up. To reach that point is the work and Word of the Church as the Body of Christ and the Tabernacle of God. We must get the world out of the Church and move the Church into the world until the lie has nowhere left to hide. This is the new Creation, one person at a time, which carries with it the capacity to redeem the whole of the Creation due to man's place in it as observer and participant made in God's own image. It's God's plan and purpose to redeem the world from the fall, which Jesus as the new Adam and first born from the dead was God-sent, to bring about.

I suppose then that movies will need a new plot-line when we get to that place, eventually, although they could show the myriad ways looking back in hindsight that the end, and the new beginning that saved the world, was brought about. Most of them would therefore be tragic comedies as we cry and laugh at who we once were or took ourselves to be. Then, when there is no more suffering, and no more starvation, and no more sickness, and no more unnecessary tears, and NO MORE WAR, and we've realized heaven on Earth by the work and word of Jesus Christ ("thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven"), we'll take to the stars, or the stars will come to us like a Bridegroom prepared for Earth as the Bride (who knows, anything's possible).

Sounds crazy i realize, but this is the work and purpose of the Church in the world because Jesus came, not to condemn the world, but so that, through Him, the world might be saved (and preserved for all generations from age to age).

"God has no wish for any other means of perfecting his creation than by our help. He will not reveal his Kingdom until we have laid its foundations" ~ Martin Buber

thoughts on a participatory eschatology: http://realitysandwich.com/167830/ecodoom_redemption_mad_movement/

P.S. Of course it is by God's Sovereign Grace that all the work is done, if we'll allow it.. It's a partnership. It's the way God made it to be, for the sake of love and freedom, and maybe even fun and enjoyment.. "so do not fear little ones, nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased our Father to share His kingdom with all His children." (maybe paraphrased slightly, sorry)

Will the evil continue to do evil and will we still need police and a legal system? of course. Even the happy ending of Revelation says as much, that after the judgement passes over the earth, the good will continue to do good and the evil, evil, but the world will never be the same once God receives His Bride and and comes to co-habitate with her, in perpetuity.

>The statements you made before this one, about what each gospel author wrote, similarities and differences, are factual statements. This conclusion on what it "seems" is an opinion, even if it is an opinion "based on evidence."

All rational conclusions are opinions drawn from evaluation of evidence or premises. I use words such as seem, appear, or suggest, to allow for some element of inconclusivity when making assertions about authorial intention or other elusive subjects. We don’t know, for example, why the author of the Gospel of Luke omitted instances of Jesus experiencing emotions like compassion and anger, but we can reasonably argue that Luke may have considered such depictions inconsistent with his conception of the Son of God, or, possibly, he was concerned with what his readers might extrapolate from a God who displays emotion.

It’s hard to say for sure; Luke’s motivation could have been something else entirely. What we do know, is that Luke made conscious editorial decisions when incorporating Mark’s material into his own gospel, and that these conclusions make sense of the available data. Based on the evidence, textual-analysis, and logical reasoning, one can eliminate certain incorrect interpretations of the data easier than locking down a definitive conclusion.

>But even if it is fully correct that Luke was intentionally sending a different message about the meaning of Jesus' life and death... There is a difference between "they have two different messages" and "there is no conceivable way to combine the two into a coherent single message," much less "the two contradict each other."

Much of this semantic quibbling preoccupied with the meaning and appropriate use of terms such as message. I would argue that Luke and Mark have different soteriological concepts which are, on some significant points, at odds with one another. This is not to say that they don’t have substantial commonalities.

I’ve never made a statement like, “there is no conceivable way to combine the two into a coherent single message" because I realize that Christian apologists and theologians conceive numerous ways to reconcile, harmonize, and gloss over such difficulties. My criticism of their efforts is that they don’t make the best, most reasonable sense of the data. Furthermore, I would contend that apologetics and harmonizing is ultimately motivated by a felt need to protect an untenable belief about the nature and origin of the Bible, (i.e., their doctrine of scripture and the inextricable concepts of its infallibility and inerrancy), and is not prompted by a desire to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

In practice, people effectively harmonize the differences between the gospels all the time. Most are unaware that Mark and Luke have different soteriologies; that Matthew and Luke have conflicting infancy narratives; and that John has no parables and changes the essential message of Jesus from that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Some Christians argue that such differences are complementary, the authors only highlighting portions of the story left out by the other writers. This is, technically, a “conceivable way to combine [the multiple accounts] into a coherent single message,” but is it the best, most rational way to make sense of the readily apparent differences? Would someone draw the same conclusion if they didn’t have so much at stake? If they didn’t already assume that the Bible was supernaturally inspired? It’s a considerable, rationally-indefensible bias which Christians must overcome.


>… it makes more sense to me, and is more of an evidence of veracity, for there to be noticeable differences between authors than for the versions to be suspiciously in lock-step as if someone intentionally modified them to make them match up better.

>Confusion and/or contradiction would be for example if gospel 1 & 2 say Jesus came to pour out His blood for the sins of many, Gospel 3 says Jesus was incorporeal and didn't actually have blood or a body, and Gospel 4 says Jesus is Ba'als son by Asherah and demands you worship at your nearest temple prostitute.

From comparing the two gospels, it’s evident that Mark considered Jesus’ death to be atonement for sin while Luke did not, though he did think it necessary to fulfill God’s plan of salvation. You’re free to dismiss this difference as inconsequential and easily reconciled. Much of the divergences between the biblical texts are of this sort, small but significant theological disparities and narrative contradictions which present multiple interpretations and accounts.

>The "textual elements" -- Differences, similarities, incongruities, changes, omissions, recurrent words and themes -- are facts. The explanation "posited" is an opinion, no matter how closely it looks at the facts in coming to those conclusions. Do all textual critics agree perfectly on their conclusions? Or at least all "true" textual critics?

Unanimity is hard to come by due to the complexity of the issues but it’s not required for one to draw conclusions. You don’t seem to understand that a conclusion is an explanation based upon premises and evidence. You’re equivocating about terms which can be used synonymously, i.e., an explanation, opinion, belief, or judgment can all appropriate be identified as a conclusion in the right context.

>… it strikes me as pretentious to say that Bible students' opinion that they are revealing different faces of a coherent single truth is, in your eyes, proven false by textual critics' opinion that there is some alternate motive at play behind the differences.

I don’t know that I can make the difference between the armchair theologian and the biblical scholar apparent enough for me to persuade you that some positions are more rational than others. You would need some more info besides what little I can effectively articulate here.

I do appreciate that fact that from your perspective, the book I recommend is equally as suspect as religious propaganda. That’s a fair expectation. Thankfully, you have to ability to read and evaluate for yourself. Should you so choose, you could take that Book of Mormon, peruse it, study its origins, and determine the reasonableness of the positions held about it by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Likewise, you can look at the text of the Bible and assess what the best rational explanation for its origin and nature. Until you’re aware of the “textual elements” to which I’ve alluded, you’re ill-equipped to make an evaluation.

If you’re interest in textual-criticism, you can check out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, despite its sensationalist title, it’s a good, popular introduction to the field. As to be expected, there are apologetic responses to Ehrman's claims. If you like, read the book and a response, and determine which makes the most compelling case.

Part 1 of 2

Wrote a really long reply and had to break it up. Sorry :/

>First off... I'm sorry I came off so upset before.

And I will be more careful going forward on reddit with my posts so as not to offend :) I could have taken more time with the post in question to strip away the implications that I thought you had moral similarities to those groups.

>Morals are personal feelings of what is right or wrong.

This is true in that it describes that individuals hold morals themselves but they can also have absolute truth values depending on whether or not objective morality is a 'thing'. "Murdering humans is wrong" has a truth value of 'T' or 'true' if the Christian God exists. Just like "The holocaust was good" has a truth value of 'F' or 'false' if the Christian God exists. Both of these moral statements have a NULL truth value in a world where morality ebbs and flows with human opinion. The Christian God isn't necessarily the only possible grounds for objective morality but I think he is the most likely, thus me being Christian and not of some other religion.

>I do believe that morals change based on when/where you live. This doesn't bother me.

Maybe you're right and this doesn't bother you, but it bothers me. And I would say 99% of the world at least LIVES as though morals were absolute. I'm sure it would bother you had lived as a Jew in 1930s/40s Europe and been thrown in a concentration camp with your family. There would be little comfort to take in reminding yourself the Nazi morality is 'different' than yours but not objectively 'wrong'. A world where the bodies can be stacked in concentration camps and where child-rape happens and where chemical weapons can be released on villages AND where none of this is objectively 'wrong', is a troubling reality.

>I have no problem and do not judge based on the Christian ideals. I understand it's not wrong in Christian society or they wouldn't be doing it.

In your post, you mention that you are passionate about gay rights. In your morality, I'm assuming that you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and that this is good. Following from this, I'm assuming you believe that religious efforts to keep marriage between heterosexual partners only, to be wrong. Also you say you have no issue with the fact that morality is subjective from one group of individuals to the other. Basically, that morals do not have absolute truth values one way or another since there is no objective standard. From this you can see that allowing homosexuals to marry is neither right nor wrong. You can campaign for their right to marry if you want, that's your choice, but it is not 'right' to do so, anymore than it is 'wrong'.

>Interpretations of the bible have changed drastically over the years.

I'm not arguing that followers of God are always moral in an objective sense. It is pretty obvious from history that this is not the case. What I'm saying is that God's changelessness provides truth values to morality. Jews and Christians may believe their actions are moral but the real truth value of that moral action is determined by God. So if you see a Christian or Jew who acts immorally, that is not proof that objective morality does not exist. It is merely proof that that individual person does not act morally 100% of the time.

>Even if you attempt to take the Bible at face value it's still difficult to understand fully.

Amen. But the worthwhile things are never easy. Jews and Christians believe we are called to 'study' God's word, not to skim it or to read once and put down. There's a lot of depth and nuance to it, along with contextual and historical factors that need to be taken into account. It's true that different interpretations arise, but most are in full agreement about the fundamental teachings of scripture, the most important being who Christ was (God incarnate, come to earth) and what he did for us (freed us from slavery to sin, immorality, and death).
I'm sure, if you've read part or all of the Bible before that many of the Old Testament sections offended your sense of morality. Old Testament morality is not an easy subject and can often be a class or two of its own in a seminary or religion program. There are few key things to keep in mind when reading the Old Testament

• The bible records what human beings did, not necessarily what God commanded them to do. Read the full context to see which cases belong in this category.
  
• God didn't drop the full morality bomb on early humans. He is constantly working in humanity to set them on an upward moral trajectory. I.e. He is 'steadily' making them better rather than asking them to completely change everything about their life at once.
  If God himself does something you perceive to be immoral, remember to analyze the passage based on the unique circumstances surrounding moral decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent being. Also remember that death in the physical temporal world is one thing, and eternity after judgement at the end of the world is another.
  
• In Old Testament laws, Christians generally recognize 3 different categories: Moral laws, Ceremonial/purity laws, and Civil laws. Moral laws would be timeless moral values, ceremonial laws would be special laws that set Israel apart as God's special priestly nation, and civil laws would be like our legal code, that is, laws for the Jewish nation to deal with crime. When you read one of these laws, it becomes obvious which category it should fall under. These categories are generally how Christians choose which apply today (namely, only the moral laws since the rest were for the Jews in that time and place).
  
  For a much better exposition of Old Testament ethics (while still being at the popular level) I highly recommend the following book by Paul Copan who is a Biblical ethicist: Is God a Moral Monster?
  
  >And yet if they removed every written record of this objective morality and killed off every person with a memory of it... what?
  
  As a Christian, I have faith that God has a vested interest in preventing this reality from happening. But let's say that it did. In that case, the existence of the Bible shows me that God desires humans to be aware of his plans and intentions so he would speak to humanity again as he did in the Bible. Perhaps the stories would be different and the books would be different, but the same moral and loving God would shine through all the same. If God is real, then his ultimate plans for the universe cannot be thwarted by ours.
  
  >Would everyone go to hell?
  
  I think the Bible is clear that, at final judgement, God will not hold anyone accountable for what they didn't know. If a little girl is raped by her Bible-thumping religious father, was she actually shown the real Jesus? No. God would expect her to be angry at religion and would provide a way for her that is fair. The Bible is crystal that God is completely just and aware of every secret thought and deed. We don't have to worry about him being fair.

> So you admit that your senses can be wrong and that leads people to delusions. How do you know you're not deluding yourself into believing in God?

Great question! As I mentioned, there is still a "softer" version of "knowing". Even though when examined logically, there are doubts as to whether my keyboard (or anything) actually exists, obviously I still assume it to be true. The level of doubt approaches zero (but never actually reaches it!) as time goes forward.

We all display our varying levels of faith in our lives. For example, you have faith that the airline pilot -who is most certainly in control of your life and death for a time- will arrive to your destination. Some people's doubts in the pilot are so high they choose not to fly.

Some people doubt a political party's ability to keep promises, some have faith in them.

Some people doubt microwaving styrofoam is bad, some people have faith that it does.

Some people doubt climate change scientists, some people have faith in them.

All this to say, practically at some point, you overcome the incredibly unlikely doubts (eg, my keyboard doesn't exist) and take a step of faith without even thinking about it.

Likewise, in my personal experience have I found the existence in God to proven over and over, to the point where the philosophical doubts became less and less.

> How do you go from this skeptical mindset, to full on believing in an omnipotent figure which has absolutely ZERO physical evidence?

In short, I believe in God's irresistable Grace. He gives you the faith first, and one cannot resist it.

> You can NOT prove God is real, or Christianity would no longer be a religion.

Unfortunately the Bible teaches that the evidence of God is "clearly visible" around us, but we all ignore it and delude ourselves to some degree.

Discussing with an atheist coworker once, we were on the subject of what would it take for him to believe. Given the premise "any significantly advanced technology is indisguishable from magic", he would dismiss anything supernatural as "there must be a scientific reason behind it!".

If all the TVs and websites in the world suddenly said "World, this is God, believe in the Christian Bible", he would dismiss it as probably a hacker group playing a prank.

If a giant hand descended from the sky and pointed at him and said "Joe Q. Smith, I am God, believe in the Christian Bible", all he knew was he saw a giant hand and a heard a voice. That doesn't mean it was God. As unlikely as seeing a giant hand in the first place, it could have been advanced aliens. Or a hologram / optical illusion ala Tupac on stage last week. Or someone could have slipped him LSD and pranked him with a megaphone.

The point being, I believe the only way someone to come to faith in God is if God gives them that faith. I could tell you that I have lots of friends who have [read books](http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307
) on the historical evidence and logical proofs for Christ and came to believe that way, but the whole time you'd be reading them saying "sure that sounds true, but I'm sure there's another explaination" or "I read on a blog that an obscure scholar says that's not how history happened".

Not saying you're necessarily wrong to be naturally skeptical and test everything (Christians are called to that as well), but for many atheists I know, no evidence would ever be enough. However, for many former atheists I know, they were convinced by the evidence they found.

TL;DR: I believe that God first gives one faith.

Since you asked for book recommendations in the other thread, I'll point to three books:

This book has to do with Christianity and Science. It's Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantiga. Plantiga is a very well respected analytic philosopher and is also a Christian. This is his most recent book and it's gotten great reviews. It deals with topics like evolution and also responds to questions such as Could God be a mental projection? and such (granted that topic is an entire book in itself but he talk about that possibility.).

The Problem of Evil by Peter Van Inwaged. I have heard this is a great book, check out the reviews on amazon if you want more.

Lastly, I would like to point to is Greg Boyd's book The benefit of doubt. I suspect this could be an especially informative book for you, since it discusses faith and reason.

Greg Boyd also wrote a book on the question of evil in the bible.

I also highly recommend the Unbelievable Podcast. This podcast features Atheist philosophers and Christian theologians sitting down and talking to others about their disagreements and agreements and other issues involving their faith. You will probably find some answers to your questions from that podcast.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable?

Lastly, you already have a lot of reading on your plate but Richard Swinburne, a well respected philosopher of religion wrote a trilology called The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason. You would do well to check that series out.

In general, I have found that every objection to the Christian faith has been responded to. Responded to does not necessarily mean answered and "solved". For many of the big problems, there are no easy, clear cut answers. But someone has looked at them and attempted an answer and ultimately, it's up to you to decide within yourself, if those answers are good enough to continue to have faith.

Please be patient and most importantly take your time as you sift through your considerations. Thinking about the philosophy of religion can be quite consuming.

Happy journying!

Great for you to join us :-)

I would suggest reading sections of the Bible in an order similar to this due to usefulness and readability:

1. Gospels and Acts
   
2. Psalms and Proverbs
   
3. Genesis through to 2 Kings (although some parts of Number and Leviticus can be challenging)
   
4. Ezra to Job, Ecclesiastes to Song of Solomon
   
5. The rest of the New testament
   
6. The Prophets
   
   I think that the letters in the new testament and the prophets have so much good stuff in them, but can be a little hard to digest. With these books I would look for a commentary or some literature that helps to point to the most useful parts. Some times the really useful parts are easily missed due to being written in amongst some other parts that are harder to understand.
   
   I would also suggest you find a good church in your area - a good church is one which focusses on what is in the scriptures and teaches real world application from it.
   
   Also, if you begin to get interested in some deeper parts of theology, I would recommend that you look into the works of people like Wayne Grudem who I think is helpful due to the way he approaches issues - he considers each main view point and then states an answer with regards to how it most logically fits. His book on Systematic Theology is excellent in my opinion.
   
   Once again, welcome to you :-)

Yea I'm in the same boat, not a scholar but I've educated myself through Bart Erhman and Mike Licona. Ill go through your list with the knowledge I have.
>As already pointed out by /u/AdultSoccer, none of the gospel authors name themselves in the text.

This is not "evidence to the contrary" as you said, but only absent evidence.
>•The Gospel of Mark is heavily borrowed from in Luke. The author of Luke-Acts makes note of John Mark in Acts 12:25, but does not identify him as the author of the Gospel of Mark.
•The Gospel of Matthew borrows even more from the Gospel of Mark than Luke. Yet, according to tradition, the disciple Matthew is an eyewitness, whereas John Mark is recording what he has learned from Peter.

Yes, the gospel writings most likely used each other as sources, but that does not discredit who they are or there story on that basis alone. For example, if you were going to write a biography of your mom, in order to get an accurate portrait of your mom, could you not ask your siblings, her friends, her relatives, etc., what she was like, to have a more complete portrayal?
>•Mark 7:31 states Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, and finally into the re. . .

I appreciate the map! But Jesus was not in a race or anything, and, if I had to guess, chose that route to show himself to as many people as possible.
>•John Mark was Jewish, yet the author of the Gospel. . .

for the Malachi prophecy, the writer only mentions Isiah, but then quotes both Malachi and Isaiah. It should be noted, though, that both Malachi and Isaiah were referring to the same event, and Isaiah would be the "greater" of the two prophets. As far as contributing the ten commandments to Moses, I'm sure you know the story. God gave Moses the commandments, and Moses then gave them to his people. The verse you gave reads, "For Moses said. . ." and Moses did indeed say these things. As far as Joseph buying the shroud on the Sabbath, the writer was just saying what happened. Yes, that would be against the law, but Jesus also worked on the Sabbath for the Kingdom of God. It appears that work for the kingdom of God on the Sabbath was acceptable, but I'm no scholar here.


I would also like to say that Plutarch's biographies don't have his named attached to them either, similarly as to the gospel's biographies of Jesus. So it is not atypical that the "by: ____" does not appear. No one denies Plutarch wrote his though. I see you called into question Papias's attributions. For Mark; Papias says, "no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord" meaning that the accuracy of sequence of events was not taken into account. Yes, Mark begins with John the Baptist preparing the way, and ends with Jesus's death, but the order of his parables and teachings, according to Papias, may not be in a chronological order. Mark just goes from one parable to the next, many times. For Matthew writing in Hebrew according to Papias; We dont have any of the original manuscripts so we dont know what the original language was. I dont see why Papias would care to lie about this, so I would say that the original language as probably Hebrew.
I appreciate your comments though!


Also, Papias was the first, but Justin the martyr also cites Mark around 150 CE. For the other gospels, all the early church fathers had one voice in who wrote the gospels, and no one else was challenging this. So the only evidence available points to their traditional authorship. The church father were not always accurate though, so, again, we cannot say with 100% certainty, but this is history 2000 years ago, and, relative to other events of the era, the available evidence is pretty good.

Lastly, if something like this is holding you back from believing (that is, "academically, we dont know who, for certain, wrote the gospels"), know that nearly 100% of new testament scholars will admit that there are at least 2 different independent sources in the gospels, and the majority of scholars say there are 4-5 independent sources. So, if you are weighing the evidence for Jesus's resurrection, know that, regardless of who wrote what, there are still several eyewitness accounts as to what happen. Check out Licona's book on this, which has over 700 pages and 2000 footnotes. He has also debated Erhman several times, you can find it on youtube

I was about to jump on historicity, too! It has given my faith an incredible shot in the arm. You say you've read Craig, but have you delved into the expanding literature around not just the historicity of Jesus but the history of the Resurrection? Some starting places:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm

Also been turned on to this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830827196/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d7_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-5&pf_rd_r=15R8W1HZ5115VTJ676JA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200422&pf_rd_i=507846

NT Wright is always brought up, though I haven't checked him out yet. Another favorite, for me, is Luke Timothy Johnson's Real Jesus, an excoriation of the Jesus Seminar, but also his Living Jesus, a blueprint of his model for faith. Timothy Keller's Reason for God is also good, and he's a pastor, too.

Listen to what I'm saying if you will. There's very good evidence not just that Jesus lived, not just that he was who he said he was, but that he really did rise from the dead! Something causes this movement, this early church. Something explains this behavior, this literature, this evidence - it is one of the tightest narratives in the ancient world, and the more modern distance we have from it the more easy it is to disbelieve it but it's no less true, no less strong as an argument from history. And if it's true, or even plausible, it doesn't matter how strong your faith is because it's true independent of your belief!

But... having said all that, may I also recommend that you make a friend you can trust to share your burden? We here at reddit certainly can, but you sure could also use an actual in the flesh beer buddy over this stuff, someone you can be yourself with. Be great if it was a fellow pastor but it doesn't have to be.

>JWs have little in common with the teachings of Arius.

The heresy that Arius was guilty of was teaching that Jesus was a created being, that was subordinate in time to the Father. JWs teach that Jesus was the Archangel Michael, a created being, and are therefore guilty of the same heresy.

>The council of Nicaea brought the false teaching of the trinity doctrine.

The doctrine of the Trinity is easily recognizable in scripture if one reads what is actually written rather than deciding that they know better and just changing it. If you do some reading on the first ecumenical councils, the context in which they occurred, and what they were a response to, I think you'll find that their doctrinal determinations were appropriate and necessary to prevent further heretical teachings. I'd suggest The Story of Christianity Vol 1. The view that JWs and Mormons hold of the creeds and the ecumenical councils don't make any sense historically and only exist to reinforce non-biblical theology.

>Eventually other false teachings such as "Mary the Mother of God" crept into Christianity, none of which our first century brothers and sisters ever did.

Agree that the Marian doctrines are false, which is why I'm not a Catholic. The Reformation was an adequate response to that problem. The fact that later heresies crept into the church does not mean that the early creeds are incorrect. You'd have to actually prove that.

>Willing to change a teaching if found to be improper or unsupported by the scriptures.

Except you've re-written the scriptures to support your position and don't accept other translations as valid. That's not a good faith position, that's stacking the deck.

>Psalm 36 says Jehovah is the source of life. Jesus certainly is the way and the truth and the life. Jesus having been taught by his Father. Jehovah is the God who sent the light (truth) into the world that we might be saved.

Read what you wrote and then read Jesus' statement again. You're having to equivocate to minimize what Jesus actually calls himself in order to fit it into your theology. This is no different than when Mormons qualify God's role to being "just the God of this earth." They have to read their belief back into the text, which is exactly what you're doing here.

>Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 which in its entirety says... “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Yes, Psalm 82 is about the unjust judges of Israel. Is Jesus unjust? No. He is the Son of the "Most High God". Psalm 83:18 tells us that Jehovah (YHWH יהוה) is "The Most High God". Moses said at Deuteronomy 18:15... Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him. The Apostle Peter confirms that this prophet was Jesus at Acts 3:22.

This doesn't remotely address my issue with how you mishandled Jesus' application of this scripture. Jesus is calling the Jews who are persecuting him unjust judges. When God is describing the judges as gods in Psalm 82, he's mocking them. Please address the issue rather than drowning it in unrelated tangents.

>The scripture never says that Jehovah "The Most High God" would become flesh.

Sure hints at it though. Emmanuel means "God with us." That a person named Emmanuel would be also be called "Wonderful, Mighty, Counsellor, and everlasting Father is what we colloquially refer to as a clue :)

>God can not die.

The eternal, unchanging, singular substance that is Yahweh? Agreed. The incarnation of that being into human flesh? That's what all of Paul's theology and Jesus' application of the tetragrammaton to himself "Before Abraham was, I AM." is pointing to. I trust them before I trust the Watchtower society.

>He sent his only-begotten son in our behalf. Jesus as an obedient son (Hebrews 5:5)

Hebrews 5 is about the role of the High Priest and the function of that role in atoning for the sins of the people. The argument in this passage is that Jesus, as the Son, is both High Priest forever, negating the need for any other intercessor, and the God to whom reconciliation must be made. He is both the priest entering the tabernacle when God traveled with Israel, and God dwelling in that tabernacle. Or, going back to the name Emmanuel and the notion of atonement being a healing of the rift between Creator and creature, God with us, at last.

>is accomplishing all the work his Father gave him to do (John 4:34).

John 4 is about Jesus establishing the importance of His mission. Building the kingdom, which he explicitly instructs the disciples to do when he tells them immediately after this that He sent them to reap, now, that for which they did not labor, is more important than anything of this world. The context in which he is explaining this is an opportunity to explain the condescension He's subjected himself to in order to bring about the Kingdom.

>John clears this debate with his words at Revelation 19:13 where Jesus is given the title "The Word of God".

How do read that as the assignment of a title? In context we're told that "he has a name that no one knows but himself" and is called instead "The Word of God." That treatment of the Name is identical to how the Israelites treated יְהוָֹה. They wouldn't say YHWH, they would say Adonai as a placeholder. Ask any Hebrew speaker today to read you the Shema, which is the most important prayer in Judaism, and they'll render it as; Shema Israel. Adonai eloheynu , Adonai ehud! "Hear, o Israel. The Lord our God (interestingly, the plural form) the Lord is one!" Even in their most important prayer, the Name is too sacred too utter.

>The personal name of the Almighty God Jehovah (YHWH יהוה) occurs in the scriptures around 7,000 times. As far as I'm concerned, every bible that has removed his name from their pages has 7,000 + mistakes.

See my comment above about the name of God. יהוה is unpronounceable in Biblical Hebrew (no vowels) and is verbalized as Adonai or Ha Shem (the Name) The closest word to these in Koine Greek is κύριος which we render as LORD in deference to the reverent handling of God's name. All those places the NWT is replacing יהוה with Jehovah are a) mocking the relationship between God and Israel, and b) doing nothing more than any other translation is doing with the word LORD, you just have less linguistic justification for it.


>Your version of John 1:1 contradicts itself and verse 2. The Word can not be with God and be God.

That's the point John is making. This is an explicit reference to the Trinity. More importantly, in every document scrap we find of John 1, from either the Alexandrian or Byzantine text types, the rendering is the same. So either you have to argue that John wrote it down wrong, or that it means something that couldn't be understood in the context of 2nd temple Jewish ideas of the nature of God. Given the reaction that the Pharisees have to Jesus when he applies the Tetragrammaton to himself later in John and, given that this is a Gospel, the purpose of which is to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and the atonement to all mankind, it seems fairly self evident that John chose his words carefully. Especially in light of [John 1:3] where John ascribes the entirety of creation to the Word. Or [John 1:4] where he uses the language you'd referenced in Psalm 36 to attribute to Jesus what David had attributed to God alone. John pretty clearly means to indicate that the Word is YHWH.

>The created Jesus was made both Lord and Christ by God (Acts 2:36)

Lord here is κύριος, the same as every rendering of יהוה in the Septuagint. And Peter is clearly playing with the wording as he cites Psalm 110:1, with the church reacting in horror as they realized that God Himself was crucified. Remember, these were people who had all witnessed the resurrected Christ, so their reaction to this declaration is not to the idea that the Messiah had been crucified, but that the Lord had been. So horrified that all 3000 of them were baptized and repented immediately after the sermon.

You'll notice that for every scripture reference you've used there's a perfectly (I know you'll disagree) valid way to exegete the text without adding anything to it. Every verse, understood in context, does something other than what you think it's doing when you use it as a prooftext. If JW scholarship were done on the basis of what the text actually says, we'd have more common ground, but you simply can't get to the conclusions you reach without wholesale changes to the meaning of words and attributing meaning that can't be read from the text itself.

u/versebot

1. I am not entirely sure of the prophecy can you give some context?
   
   
2. Free will is an integral part of the Christian for He made us in His image and likeness. God has given us this beautiful gift - that we may love. Because we are created in and by Love Itself - such a gift can never be taken back. By God's grace, we can become what Jesus Christ was.
   
   
3. My suggestion is to read a little bit of Christian history (I will definitely receive some flak for what I write here). There are only 3 churches that claim apostolic succession (lineage via the bishops to the apostles them - either the 12 or the 70 or other apostles). They are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church. All other churches and confessions were created way, way after. If you need some help on this kindly PM me.
   
   
4. Don't we all? :) There's a great amount of biblical and historical evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and did claim to be divine. I highly recommend http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20case%20for%20jesus&qid=1462615674&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
   
   
5. A wonderfully written article on Genesis is http://www.pravmir.com/creation-in-genesis/
   
   I hope this helps :) Again, feel free to ask around and/or you can always PM me if you have any questions my friend :)

The 4-source theory (or the Documentary Hypothesis) holds that Genesis (along with the rest of the Pentateuch [First 5 books of the Bible]) were written by 4 different authors, and later compiled into the book that we have.

The 4 sources are JEDP, J is the Jahwist, E is the Elohimist, D is the Deuteronomist, P is the Priestly Source.

I'm assuming you're writing about the flood narrative in Genesis, which is generally accepted to be a Jahwist text, thought to be written around 950 B.C.E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Use this to get legitimate sources.


There's also the traditional belief that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, which would place it at about 1250 B.C.E., but nobody really puts a whole lot of stock in that anymore.

Personally, I don't particularly buy the 4-source theory as it stands, as it seems to be an unnecessary explanation. It seems to me that the Pentateuch is a collection of Ancient Near Eastern myths compiled by one author, probably around 500 B.C.E. That's probably why you have some similarities with works like Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish, because they all draw from the same oral traditions.

Anyways, I would look for sources on Wikipedia. Your best bet for good, solid information is on the documentary hypothesis. Let me know if you have any other questions, I'll see what i can do to help.

EDIT: Richard Friedman might be a good source. He has a few books that are accessible to the layperson. Particularly Who Wrote the Bible?.

I'd also recommend a few commentaries on Genesis. The best one I've read is the JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis by Dr. Nahum M. Sarna. It's got a lot of Hebrew stuff in it, but you can still get some good information about the Jewish interpretation of Genesis.

Good Luck.

Maybe I'm crazy, but Simply Christian by N.T. Wright is, in my opinion, a beautifully composed book explaining the Christian faith. It's in the same vein as C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity in that Wright doesn't deal with anything denominational. He merely explains why we Christians have become so and the beauty of the beliefs that comprise the core of our faith.

Here's a link to it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Christian-Christianity-Makes-Sense/dp/0061920622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374349814&sr=8-1&keywords=simply+christian

It's a pretty short read, especially because the language and style are simple.

I hope that all works out for you and your girlfriend for the glory of God's Kingdom, man.

P.S. He also expounds on three different lenses through which to view God's relation to the world. The first two he is trying to refute, them being pantheism/panentheism and dualism. The third, which he propones as more accurate to the Christian/Judaic faiths, is that Heaven and Earth are not the same, as the pantheist might posit, or that they are completey separate (so says the dualist), but that they are somehow closely intertwined. Anyways, I like this book. You should check it out even for yourself.

First, I think it would be an excellent idea to contact your chaplain friend about what you are thinking. It starts with relationships, and you have one there ready-made to leverage.

Second, start perhaps just by "belonging" to a place. Find a Anglican community nearby and just start going. Then, DO something with them. If they have a ministry in the community somewhere, just pitch in. Belief is the work of a lifetime, and it is the consequence of relationships and doing... belief is the LAST thing to come... not the first. If that sounds a little strange, here's an article at my Parish's website titled "I've never even BEEN in a church..." that might clarify what I mean by this: http://www.stjamesnl.org/ I know that's not your particular case, but you ARE approaching faith for the first time as an adult... and it will seem like you are starting right from the beginning.

One of the exciting things I discovered in my own, very similar journey, was that God turns out to be "fractal", rich, and immensely interesting... so very different than the God I thought I understood as a child.

A book I would recommend for you is Simply Christian by NT Wright. Wright is the author of dozens of scholarly and popular books on Christianity (and is a CoE Bishop (ret)). His work is immanently readable. It may help you to frame things up. http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Christian-Christianity-Makes-Sense/dp/0061920622

Happy to help if I can...

Ron

> I'm not attending at the moment nor have I in quite some time.

Well, obviously, everybody is going to say you should fix that! Maybe try out several different churches, so you can find the best place, and maybe you'll feel like you've chosen it on your own, instead of just following along with family or whatever (even if you end up at the same church as before).

>I've read the occasional scripture but not recently. I am in the market for my own bible (never owned my own though).

You should read a gospel or two, and a nice Epistle. How about my favorite synoptic, Matthew. Then read John, and then Romans or 1and2 Corinthians. There are several good Bible translations available now. The most popular ones for this subreddit are the NRSV and ESV, and then maybe the NABRE. I've got this Bible; it's a good translation and it has tons of notes.

>No books.

Just about everybody likes CS Lewis. NT Wright's stuff is very good.

>I guess I'm wondering if it is odd to feel so lost?

I don't think so, I think it happens to most people. It's good that your family kept you in church, but at some point you've got to take over the task yourself, and often you don't know what you need to know. You should be trying to fix it, but it sounds like you've started that task, so I'd just keep at it, and don't worry about it.

You've read "Warranted Christian Belief" by Plantinga (did you? or something else?) and it didn't answer sufficiently for you most of the questions in your stated OP? ... I'd have a hard time coming up with something better from a philosophical or natural perspective on belief.

I mean, a read through The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict might be a good starting point that's a pretty thorough excerpt from a historical authenticity point of view (scriptural etc. although it's mostly a rehashing and collection of other author's arguments and evidences). I found a lot of personal interest in Pensees by Blaise Pascal - but it's not well organized as it's his collections of personal journaling.

The one bit of info I can offer more than anything is that reading a book is a good way to get your head around a concept that doesn't require action or emotion - but Christianity is such that you need to experience both the intellectual pursuits and corrections of the Bible and the emotional connection with God and his church to really understand it. Go to a local church and ask the pastor/priest why and how they ended up in their position. Go to different churches and get some varying stories. I find that people tend to give more honest reflections of their beliefs when they are physically present than in writing which is carefully combed over and worded for a specific audience. It's only one directional. If you interact, I hope you find some people that can give you a more honest perspective on why Christianity makes sense. -- And I do really mean in person. Reddit is a great source for things, but personal contact is so much more rich.

If I can let you know, you're not alone. I'm 32 and hopefully next year my gf of 4 years and I are planning on getting married. It isn't easy, but waiting is possible. Being with likeminded friends helps. And perspective takes time. In the bubble of school a lot of things look fun. But in the real world, with real consequences, not so much. These things do have emotional and psychological consequences that you will take with you into your future relationships. Waiting is a means of protecting those future relationships.

Now for those questions, yes they can get annoying. But you don't have to reinvent the wheel. There have been many smart Christian writers, theologians, artists, philosophers, apologists, etc... who have given these issues a lot of thought and you would do well to get acquainted with them. I'd recommend something like Grudem's Systematic Theology for basic doctrine. For specific questions, Tim Keller's The Reason For God is pretty popular, and I'm liking philosopher Douglas Groothuis's Christian Apologetics.

Why not just start covering a particular book of scripture together? You could go through a short book, and anyone with a Bible would be plenty capable of following along.

You could also do a study on Systematic Theology. That doesn't have to be big and complicated; you could just look at certain interesting topics, like the canon of scripture, or the authority of scripture, or something like that. If you are interested in that, I would recommend Systematic Theology by Wayne grudem because it is fairly thorough, but also very clearly put for anyone to read.

I think it is great that you are wanting to welcome non-believers as well! Still though, I would encourage you to keep your discussions centered on Christ and the Gospel, regardless of whatever specifics you may be discussing. In other words, be welcoming to non-believers, but don't feel like you need to program specifically for them. Just be consistent in proclaiming Christ and the Gospel - that has value for everyone.

To feel God's presence: faith = action. If you want to move forward in your spiritual journey then move forward. That's the scripturally supported way to feel God's presence. This modern notion of going to a building 1-hour a week with the expectation of a Matrix-esque instant download of peace, comfort, safety and happiness is what is called "cheap grace".


Saving faith is inextricably tied to action and discipleship is engagement. I suggest reading The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. If you don't want to buy it then I'm sure your town Library has a copy.


Bonhoeffer coined the phrase "cheap grace" which he said was grace without discipleship. The most powerful times I feel God's presence, when it literally overflows within me, is when I'm being a good steward – putting faith into action by serving.

An introduction to Christian doctrine and what Christians believe is completely different than an introduction to the Bible.

For a free, online, scholarly introduction to the Bible I suggest OpenYale's courses on the New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures available here. Both Christine Hayes and Dale B. Martin are excellent. Biblical Literacy by Timothy Beal is an excellent accessible and mostly moderate[1] introduction to the the Bible for someone who's never read it before.

As far as both doctrine and the basis for doctrine go, that'll differ drastically from denomination to denomination. Most Protestant denominations claim that they believe in "sola scriptura" or "scripture alone", but perhaps the biggest blow to this statement may be the fact that you can't read the Bible and instantly divine everything there is to know about Protestants. Understanding the history of Protestantism is necessary. Even within the realm of Protestantism you'll find a diverse spectrum of beliefs. I personally have more in common theologically with some Muslims than I do with fundamentalist Protestant Christians.

Catholic and Orthodox traditions both explicitly state the importance of the church and church tradition, and so simply "understanding the Bible" won't get you very far there.

I'm tempted to offer Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright or the famous Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, but I cannot overstate the fact that even given their wide acceptance among the vast spectrum of Christian traditions, they are speaking out of a very particular perspective (they're both Anglican). A fair question, asked by Lamin Sanneh, is, "Whose religion is Christianity?" There are completely separate articulations of Christianity that have nothing to do with the Western culture it is so much associated with today. In his book he explores Christianity beyond the west. C.S. Song's book Jesus, the Crucified People: The Cross in the Lotus World covers specifically ways in which Christianity has risen across Asia.

I've got to run, but last I want to suggest Houston Smith's The World's Religions. He does a great job of highlighting the best of each of the world's major religious traditions.

__

[1] When people say "moderate" they don't mean "I believe in it moderately" but rather "In the spectrum from conservative to liberal interpretations of the Bible I fall somewhere in the middle".

The Bible says on John 21:25

"25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

So yes, there are many stories that were not written down on manuscripts and HAS to had been passed down orally. Think about this, there are pastors or priest that have memorize their entire Bible today. Hell, there are people from other religions that have memorize their entire Holy book. Why do you think it's so farfetched for earliest Christians to had memorize 5-6 verses? Especially if they knew that they needed to preserve the integrity of this story of literally the Messiah, the son of God himself in order to pass it down. Even as an atheist yourself, you have to admit that this is an immense extra pressure on them to preserve it as it is.

If we are gonna apply this method of scrutiny, you understand that every single religion has used an oral tradition. Christianity is actually one of the religions that has more documented history and strongest backing on his side. And I'm not trying to be arrogant or anything but it really is true. The earliest manuscript can even be traced to just 5 AD after the cross. Even in traditional history this is an anomaly. Let's look at Alexander the Great biography for example wrtten by Plutarch. It came 400 years after Alexander's death, and you would say that it is reliable. there are over four times as many sources for Jesus’ life and deeds than for Tiberius Caesar’s, which was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus.

>What does it take for a story to be 'authentic'? Is it just that Christians have to like the story? or is it that the story has to be in the original manuscripts? Would it be fair to say 'some Christians making copies of the bible thought it was appropriate to add this passage, therefore the passage is authentic'?

No. You see, there were many forgeries that came up throughout history claiming to be genuine gospels, how to differentiate them? It's simple. You look at the rest of the Bible and see if it is consistent with the teachings/life of Jesus, the OT and NT. It's no different than using this method with any other historical manuscript.

Listen man I have to sleep but I'll tell you this, If you really want to hear more about how the New Testament was formed and the historical development of the Bible, there are sources on the internet and books available. Here are some that I recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=pd_cp_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=083081258X&pd_rd_r=PDQ7KR94J0E0R5F5XHXR&pd_rd_w=htZar&pd_rd_wg=jYezq&psc=1&refRID=PDQ7KR94J0E0R5F5XHXR

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Bible-Philip-W-Comfort/dp/0842383670

Although I'm sure many people in here would give better recommendations, these are pretty good. God bless.

I've been reading Dr. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and finding it to be pretty stimulating so if you want something on the more academic end then that could be good.

CS Lewis's The Great Divorce is a good, quick read with an interesting take on the natures of Heaven and Hell.

Rev. Dr. Mary Kathleen Cunningham is a very good scholar who I studied under during undergrad and who has put together a very nice reader which surveys the spectrum of belief in the creationism/evolution debate called God and Evolution which is good if you're interested in that kind of thing.

Dr. Craig Keener has a good, cohesive commentary on the New Testament which you can buy as a single volume called The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.

So there's a few to start out with. Let me know if you're looking for anything more specific and I can try to help (I have a budding theological library in my apartment).

>Yet while he never delineates Gospel specifics (other than the Last Supper, the Crucifixion & Resurrection- three of them you claimed he doesn't)

Sorry, I should have been clearer when I said…

>the only part of the Jesus story Paul does write about, just so happens to match almost exactly the same death and resurrection arc attributed to hundreds of hero warrior gods throughout antiquity

…that this is exactly the part I was referring to. The death and resurrection narrative is, contrary to your assertion, littered throughout ancient folklore.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269831504&sr=1-1

>I suggest you read the early Church Fathers objectively. Seems as if you're actively looking to prove a thesis you already have (that Jesus never existed or that he wasn't what Christians claim he is or whatever). Early Church history is actually quite fascinating.

I couldn't agree more on that—and I'm sorry if I seem 'pre-convinced', because I'm not. The historicity of it is, as you say, truly fascinating stuff. But as I'm sure you'll also concede that doesn't necessarily make any of it true. And I don't mean that in a small way. I mean how, for example, would you explain to someone in 2000 years time what the narrative of the Superman story was supposed to impart, if you were to travel forward in time and arrive in a future where astronomers who could prove there was never a planet Krypton were accused of being selective, or "actively looking to prove a thesis [they] already have"?

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to have noticed by now, incidentally, that I might just as easily say the same about Christianity's truth-claims as you say about mine to the contrary—which I would like to assure you extend much further than having watched merely a few direct-to-web documentaries, however well the one to which you refer to happens to have been made. I was born and raised for the first 16 years of my life a Catholic and "got saved" at around 10 or 11. I've been religion free for the best part of the last 20 years and an atheist since September 11th 2001.

I am not sure I completely understand the question, but if you are looking to do an in-depth study of the New Testament, I would recommend getting some Bible commentaries.

Concordia Publishing House has a nice series called Concordia Commentary. Here is a link to the volume on Galatians:

https://www.amazon.com/Galatians-Concordia-Commentary-Theological-Exposition/dp/0758615523

Typically you would want something that discusses the original Greek (the actual words, the cases that some words appear in, the grammar (or lack thereof :))) . Most Bible commentaries will also contain commentary on the text, but I guess you could skip that.

With this, I think a good concordance is helpful.

You probably would also want a good dictionary that can discuss the uses of important Greek words.

EDIT: I wanted to add: If it isn't clear, you would want to try and understand the original Greek (including the different manuscripts). As such a serious study might start with a study of Biblical Greek. I can recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Basics-Biblical-Grammar-William-Mounce/dp/0310287685

(From what I understand this textbook is widely used.)

One more thing: I would also recommend looking at the history of the Biblical canon. Something like:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X

might be helpful.

Join a Christian community and read the Bible. You do not need to read the Bible from beginning to end, it's okay to start in the middle because the Bible is an anthology. Most Christians recommend starting at the Gospels in the New Testament because those witness to the significance of Jesus' identity. The Bible is best read with others, in conversation and community.

Oh yeah, and Jesus. If there is anything at the center of Christianity, it is that Jesus shows us what God is like. We believe God's character is marked by a terribly deep and unfathomable love. Christians believe that God wishes to transform the world and human relationships through Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

Two accessible introductions to Christianity I really enjoy are by Rowan Williams: Being Christian and Tokens of Trust. The first book introduces Christianity through four key practices of Christians, and the second book introduces Christianity through an popular statement of belief called the Apostles' Creed. So I think they're complementary because one focuses on practices and the other focuses on beliefs.

John Stott's Basic Christianity and NT Wright's Simply Christian are also very good.

Sorry that I'm throwing a billion books at you. Best of luck in this journey.

I grew up Baptist but became an atheist when I was 17. After 20 years I came back this summer. One thing that really helped me was the new Testament scholar N.T. Wright, he has a book, Simply Christian which I will recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Simply-Christian-Christianity-Makes-Sense/dp/0061920622

He has a lot of lectures on youtube and the like, easy to google and also commentaries on various books of the New Testament. If you aren't used to reading the Bible it might help to have a commentary to help with the many things that can seem unfamiliar or strange to a modern reader.

I agree with the earlier poster who warned about the King James. The King James is a beautiful translation and a foundational work of english literature but might be a poor choice for a modern reader seeking to understand content. For that I might go with one of the various 'RSV' translations like RSV, NRSV, ESV, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE etc.

Another thing that is helpful is what is called the 'lectionary' which is basically the Bible broken up into readings throughout the church year on a three year cycle. It is easy to follow along on a daily basis and helps get you into sort of a pattern. The lectionary is used by many churches, Roman Catholic, Episcopal/Anglican, Lutheran, some Methodist and Presbyterian, etc.
Daily reading: http://www.dailylectio.net
Full lectionary: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/
There are also lectionary apps for your phone.
Also if you decide toattend mass/service at a church that uses the lectionary you will basically be following along.

I find reading the Bible every day and praying does change you, maybe in ways you won't expect.

>You cannot separate the old and new testament as the word of God. If you believe one, you believe the other, and one is so full of death, destruction, anger, hate, and just plain vile stories that it simply cannot be divinely inspired.

I agree with you in that they are the exact same God. The God of the new testament and the God of the old testament, so if you believe in one, you believe in the other because they are one in the same. I'm not going to try to explain it, because it's such a broad topic, and I don't feel I have a good enough command of the english language to get my point across, but I can believe the actions of God in the old testament can be fairly easily rectified. This book helped to reconcile my beliefs when I needed answers about the very same topic. And after a quick google search, I found this a youtube video of a radio interview with Paul Copan, the author of that book.

As far as being good without God, from a worldy view, this is definitely possible, but not so much from a Christian view. There is nothing good in me. On my own, I am capable of no good need. I am human, I am corrupt, and evil by nature. God is the only thing in me that is good, and every time I complete a good action, it is solely because of Him. In a secular sense, you can be good without God, because even though you may not believe in God, you still live in His world. There is still an ultimate moral standard, that everyone agrees upon, yet has no natural explanation. You can most certainly have more 'goodness' than a christian from the perspective of completing more 'good' acts.

I don't believe God stacked the evidence against Himself when he created the universe. There is just as much scientific evidence for biblical creation, as there is for a natural creation. In fact, it's the exact same evidence! The evidence that atheists use to proclaim the nonexistence of God, is used by Theists to proclaim His existence! The same evidence is just interpreted differently by two different groups of people. The problem is, everyone has a world view, so it's impossible to look at the evidence and be completely neutral. If you begin examining the evidence believing one thing, you will most likely draw a conclusion similar to your prior beliefs. A world view is like a colored lens. If you wore green glasses everywhere, you might suspect everything is green. Not because it is, but because the glasses make it seem so. So really the proof in whether or not there is a God, comes down to determining which world view is correct. Fortunately, all world views separate from Christianity conflict themselves somewhere, thus proving they can't be the 'correct' view. Most of them lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't be able to know anything about the universe that we live in, or that day to day actions of anyone without God, are completely unexplainable. This is because Christianity is the only world view that can accurately account for the preconditions of intelligibility, or the conditions that must exist before we can know anything. Atheists cannot account for these conditions, and have to actually rely on the Bible, before they can argue against it. I'm not going to give a super thorough explanation here, but I would suggest looking into Presuppositional apologetics, and the preconditions of intelligibility.

Because the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be God himself in the flesh, rose from the dead. That's what it stands and falls on. I'd recommend [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196) book for an in-depth study of this event.

I think we've all been vaccinated to Christianity. We've been given a small, almost dead cultural version of it so that, untintentionally, we reject it as old, "been there done that." We cease to see how radically different Christianity is, in that God became flesh to reunite man with himself, to take upon all the darkness of the world and destroy it; trampling down death by death. We proclaim that "Jesus is Lord", but do we realize what this means? That Christ is truly our king? That all that is good has come from God and will return to God? We weren't created to be decent, to be a nice guy who lives a nice life. We were created to live and love with God eternally, nothing less will satisfy us and anything less will fall short. Christianity is not comfortable, it's not a feel good religion. We are called by Christ to pick up our crosses and die to ourselves, to follow him despite any suffering that comes along, because God loves us with such an intensity that anything less than eternal life for us won't cut it.

If you haven't already, check out Bishop Barron on YouTube. Additionally, pick up a copy of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if you can. Also, read the New Testament all the way through (it doesn't take that long).

God bless, and may God guide you on your journey!

> Why, Christianity as opposed to atheism or other religions?

Hey man, I can't help you much with the questions about the specifics of creation and the role death plays in it, that has never bothered me a lot and I came to Christianity already believing that evolution is true. But I can help you with this question, I hope.

If you really want to find out you will have to do your own research on Christianity and other religions and on atheism and make up your mind. That said I think the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is very strong. I'd encourage you, if you have the time and money, to read the following two books: The Jesus Legend by Boyd & Eddy, and The Resurrection of Jesus by Licona. Both are very thorough and scholarly, the first dealing with the reliability of the gospels in general and the latter dealing with Jesus' resurrection in particular.

If you want a well grounded faith, you need to have a solid foundation. So many people believe in Jesus because they think the Bible is inerrant and when they discover that it isn't so, their faith quickly falls away. When our faith depends on the inerrancy of the Bible, our faith depends on our ability to resolve any and all of the apparent (and real) contradictions, both internal to the Bible and between Bible and external reality (like with young earth creationism and science). When we come across a contradiction that we can't resolve, our faith then will quickly come crashing down.

It should be the other way around: Jesus should be our foundation, and because Jesus is God and He held Scripture in high regard, we should have a healthy respect for Scripture as well. Perhaps then we won't tie ourselves in knots in trying to come up with tortured interpretations whenever the house of cards of inerrancy threatens to come crashing down. Look to Jesus when something in Scripture doesn't make sense; Jesus is the full revelation of God, the clearest picture (or icon if you like) of God that we will ever get in this earthly life.

The space-time thing is honestly absurd, I don't see how it could not make sense for a necessary being (insofar as He exists) to not exist. There being no space-time wouldn't matter seeing as how He is a fundamentally immutable and incorporeal being?

As for the supposed witness of other faiths, at that point you have to get into the trenches and quibble logically and philosophically. And I feel that Christianity most definitely wins those battles.

The "problem" of evil isn't really a problem at all. If you read any Plantinga you will become familiar with the free will defense and the moral responsibility (in many forms) defense to that claim. What are the contradictory omni-claims? If you are speaking of how God can be omni-just and omni-forgiving, in Christian theology these adjectives are used to describe qualitative intrinsic maximums, not quantitative infinites, thus there is no conflict.

What is the problem with Atonement, the Trinity, and God's special revelation in the OT+NT? The Gospel is God speaking to everyone who reads it, right now. His Revelation culminated with Jesus Christ, and that was infinitely sufficient. Why would He need to continue talking directly to people, in light of this grand special revelation and His general revelation, not to mention His manifestation through the Holy Spirit throughout our lives? (You'll have to be more specific about the "problems" with atonement and the trinity in order for me to respond to them.)

And I most certainly do see a huge amount of change in my life and the lives of those around me through Christ; I feel that I have gained a true Christian witness in the past year, and since that point my life has become infinitely better and more fulfilling (not to mention religious experiences I and others have had). What are some of the things that Christ told His disciples they could do that believers cannot do? Link specifically to scripture if you want to sustain this objection.

Also, you should read Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga. It is another fantastic book.

God bless.

In Orthodox church buildings, the inside is full of images of saints and angels. In some of the old churches in Greece, you'll see some interesting images in the frescoes of the exonarthex - the outer entrance. Icons of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, etc. Not because the Orthodox Church wholly endorses their ideas, but because they definitely got hold of some elements of truth, the way Melchizedek did. No Christian buys all of Aristotle or Plato, but they did get some things very right, and for that we recognize them as (in a sense) prophetic.

(The modern Fundamentalist movement hasn't done Christianity any favors by making a black-and-white difference between "verbal plenary inspiration" of the Bible texts and everything else merely "traditions of men.")

The evangelical missionaries who translated the Gospel of John into Cantonese (I don't know about other Chinese dialects) recognized Lao Tzu's concept of the Tao as cognate with Heraclitus' Logos - in Cantonese, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and th Tao was God. All things were made by the Tao... the Tao became flesh and dwelt among us."

Christ the Eternal Tao is a fascinating book on the conceptual relationship of the Christian Logos and the Tao. The author has been a Taoist and a Christian and respects both paths without falling into syncretism.

Source [amazon.com] Heaven by Randy Alcorn (and the Bible of course)

Heaven will be earth without sin period.

When I say heaven will be earth I mean it. Heaven will be the manifestation of "heaven on earth." This means be our actual physical present earth, the one your feet rest upon at this moment will be heaven (where God lives). It will be all of the good of the present earth without any of the bad. If you Imagine everything good in this world without corruption you may have a glimpse at what heaven will be like for the Christian

We all have doubts. It's part of being human and being a Christian. As you mentioned you are still looking for truth and are open to the idea of theism. I would just recommend a few books for reading that are great intellectual reading about the subject. That being: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
as well as anything by CS Lewis notably [Mere Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425281260&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+cs+lewis) and Screwtape Letters.

All the best in finding truth friend, and although you may doubt Him (even as Apostles, greatest evangelists, martyrs, missionaries also did) I would not advise ruling out Christ just yet.

The easiest way to get Christianity is to read the Bible. But to supplement that, I would encourage you to read books by these two German authors: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jurgen Moltmann

Bonhoeffer was a prominent leader of the confessing church (the church that resisted Hitler) and was a prominent member of the German resistance and a part of the Valkyrie plot. If you want to know more about him and his life, Eric Metaxas wrote an excellent Biography about him. Bonhoeffer's most famous works are "Life Together" about living a life in Christian community, and "The Cost of Discipleship" which is about Grace and how we must not live in a place of cheap Grace. Bonhoeffer was executed a t Flossenburg concentration camp a few months before VE day, and there are some nice memorials to him there (about 1.5 hours east of Nurnberg).

Jurgen Moltmann was drafted into Hitler's army in like 1944 and was taken prisoner. He found God in a Scottish POW camp. Moltmann writes a lot about Hope and spends a lot of time exploring what Christ's sacrifices mean to believers. Some of his most famous works are "The Crucified God", "Theology of Hope", "Trinity and the Kingdom" and "The Way of Jesus Christ." Moltmann also comments on more social issues which arose in the post-war era and has a more social theology, which adds a unique depth to his writing.

You might consider checking out /r/AcademicBiblical for a non-theological approach to the bible. (TBH, most of the recommendations you've received here are theologically based) I know there was a thread there a couple of months ago where they were trying to consolidate resources, but I'm not finding it at the moment.

My go-to resources are these Religious Studies courses available from Yale University. They both do an outstanding job of presenting the texts from a historical-critical approach.

You can also check out this list of resources.

My most trusted recommendations for the OT are How to Read the Bible by James Kugel and Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman.

If you could narrow down your interests a little more - "Bible" is a pretty broad topic - I'd be happy to brainstorm some more ideas.

Sorry for the late reply, you caught me between class and teaching last night.

> I did not know that about Luther. Did he say why he removed those books?

His reasoning for removing those 7 books were that they weren't recognized by the Jews as canon (who themselves only "formalized' their Scripture sometime between the 3rd and 6th centuries. There's no scholarly consensus on when it was exactly finalized or by whom). Part of his reasoning was that they weren't (debatably in some cases) written in Hebrew but instead in Greek, thus they weren't inspired texts like the rest of the Hebrew OT. The Council of Trent, a Catholic Ecumenical Council, defined the Catholic Bible as 73 books including the 7 removed by Luther and the Reformers as deuterocanon (or "secondary canon" though still full parts of Scripture).

> Also, was there ever some sort of original historical team that established a set of books that was later refined? Do we have a timeline where that occurred, and how the Canon shaped over time and research?

Wiki does a good job summarizing the major movements in the development. And as I said above, Trent was when the finalized Catholic bible was authoritatively declared, though it was basically a formal acknowledgement of what was already standard practice in the Church for about a thousand years.

>Is this what the "Magisterium's Team" is?

The Magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church and they settle matters of doctrine, including what is contained in Holy Scripture. The Magisterium is what made up the various councils throughout the ages including Trent.

>Finally, is there any specific source you recommend where I can go to find out more about the history of the Canon of the Bible?

Like I said, wiki does quite a good job giving a summary level. If you want a more academic and in depth reading I recommend Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament as was already suggested (though it tends to be on the apologetic side, it is still quite reliable) or F F Bruce's The Canon of Scripture. Niel R Lightfoot's How We Got The Bible is also quite good.

There is scientific evidence that what I am saying is true. It's Historical in nature (and History is a science right?)

Christianity has been the seedbed for every Scientific revolution, Isaac Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, all believed in the Christian God and therefore found justification for their scientific pursuits in that belief.

Also, the kind of free Government we enjoy in western Nations was born after the Reformation under the watchful eyes of the Baptists, Anabaptists and the Puritans.

The ethic behind these movements was completely Christian, and religious freedom could only have been born under Christianity.

If you want to talk about the Old Testament and its laws, a simple way of seeing it is that Jesus fulfilled the law's demands as our the federal head of God's people. He purchased his children and redeemed them and so the Mosaic law now stands as a testimony to God's graceful forgiveness.

There's a whole lot written on the subject. If you like you can read this book to clarify some things for you. You can get a paperback or kindle version.

People aren't going to be perfect, ever. We're called to be in community, and it's even made mention of the fact that when we gather in Christ's name, He is there with us. Do you not see the irony in judging "98%" of Christians as judgmental, unloving, and mean?

You're always going to have people you don't get along with. You're always going to encounter expectations that are unmet in any relationship; particularly when you're holding them up to the standard Christ has given us. It's your responsibility, as a Christian, to love these people anyways. Love them, even though their love may seem conditional. Serve them, even though their service may seem disingenuous. Worship with them, even though you think their worship is an act.

This is a matter of fact in Christian life and fellowship. It's something that we all have to work on if we're going to successfully live together as communities for the Kingdom of God. Withdrawing into seclusion isn't a very practical option, and certainly doesn't have a whole lot of precedent for success in our religion's history. We were intended to live, love, learn, and serve with each other; withdrawing only serves to further separate yourself from the life God created you to have.

I will definitely be praying for you, but I would also recommend a couple books by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (if you're so inclined):

• Life Together
  
• The Cost of Discipleship

The JW position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Greek in John 1. I won't completely rip off Wayne Grudem here, but their translation of:

>Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

to:

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

rather than

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

is incorrect. They say that the lack of a definite article before theos (θεὸς) indicates that it should be translated as the JWs do. This is, frankly, ignorant of basic Greek grammatical rules, which do not require the definite article, instead using the context of the sentence to determine if it should be "was God" or "was a god". The context of the sentence and those around it give every indication that it must be translated to "was God". Watchtower (the JW newsletter) I believe acknowledged the error not too long ago, but stood by their translation, saying something to the effect of "the context of the rest of scripture" supports them.

this is not only irrelevant for translation purposes, but false on its own merit.

Wayne Grudem goes into a lot of detail on this in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine -- not a cheap book, but it is perhaps the best work of its kind ever written. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Parts are available on google books. There is quite a bit on this issue that isn't available online though.

Desiring God has a nice article on the person of Christ, but not as full and complete.

If fiction is your thing, any of Dostoevsky's fiction is great especially if you like philosophy. Crime and Punishment is wonderful, and The Brothers Karamazov is also highly recommended but damn if I've been able to finish it. I keep getting distracted with non-fiction - I keep going back to Diarmaid MacCulloch's History of Christianity - it's a fantastic historical summary and a great jumping off point into other tangents if you're into history. Also, this is a pretty good history of the early church (sorry, my bias is showing).

Edit: Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling is another good one in a philosophical vein.

> Your assumptions about not looking for discussion are silly at best and spiteful at worst.

I didn't say you weren't looking for discussion, I said it seems the type of discussion you're looking for is likely better served in a different forum. I hardly think that's thoughtless or disrespectful.

Regarding legislation that is religiously motivated I'll first site gay marriage which attempts to limit people's rights because (in most cases) of religiously motivated "morals."

Second, I'll point out that (typically) religiously motivated opposition to stem-cell research is almost certainly condemning people in this world to addition suffering and death.

A third example is the increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancy caused by the instance, often by religiously motivated people, that only abstinence only sex education be taught.

I'll certainly accept your argument that good intentions do not equate to good outcomes, but certainly they don't necessarily require that they lead to bad outcomes. Does everyone do bad or wrong things at various points throughout their lives? Of course they do. Does that automatically define them as bad people? I would argue of course not. They are factors to be weighed, but to think that we are all born evil and have no hope of being better without having someone continually watching over us is a bleak view of human nature. Hobbes might agree with you, but I think that humans have the capacity for goodness as well, and that we can do good simply for the sake of being good, not because there's someone watching us or because we expect a reward for being good. That was more the point of my argument that atheists (and all people by extension) do good things. We are all capable of being good, at least most of the time. We need not have fear of, or hope for, what comes next to do so.

> You're presumptuous to speak for the billions of people you don't know.

So your claim, then, is that the people who live short unpleasant lives are the luckiest of us all? They have the most capacity to approach god because, like Paul, they suffered the most? Or, am I faulting God for being ignorant and there really are not billions of people suffering every day because they lack the basic necessities of life? I am pretty confident that it's true that they do lack such things, and I don't think it's much of a stretch to point out that that leads to suffering. Beyond that I don't think I did anything to "speak for [them]" as you suppose I did. I pointed out that the majority of people in the world are living short lives of nearly continual suffering. That isn't really putting many words in their mouths.

Interestingly about your point about pain being necessary and then suggesting I read, I just finished a book by Bart Ehrman on the topic of Biblical explanations of why people suffer (your view is only one of several presented in the Bible by the way). He's the dean of theological studies at UNC at Chapel Hill if you're unfamiliar with who he is. It's a very interesting read, and I would like to recommend you pick up your own copy of God's Problem. I think that many people who know me would be surprised to hear that I lack basic reasoning skills. I, obviously, disagree with your assessment there. As for your slight against the American education system, I'll point out that my University education anyway was in Canada.

I wouldn't say that I know nothing of Jesus' anger, although one of the most famous examples (throwing the money changers out of the temple) is probably not actually original to the Bible. We could get into a lot of textual criticism but I'll confess I only have knowledge of that from a single source (another Bart Ehrman book called Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

If you think the Bible as you read it is the original way it was written you would do well to read that, just for the introduction into the search for the original text of the NT in particular.

2 things:

1. It helps to have a mental framework wherein a god, or "great mental entity" is even possible. There is evidence, but without accepting first that God may exist, it will be explained away as something else. You don't have to believe at first, but it's impossible to understand Christianity if you start off rejecting even the smallest possibility that God exists and wait for someone/something to prove you wrong. Inquire into The Quinque Viae with an open (but discerning) mind.
   
2. Start by looking into how the Bible was made. A good resource is The Canon of Scripture. Most people emphacize the teachings of the Bible (which is good, but as you pointed out, then it's one teaching against another and how do you choose?) over the history. The Bible is not one writing; it is accounts collected over history by different writers about how God showed up in history. And the history is accurate. These are by and large the only religious documents ever made that don't take place in an unverifiable place or time. The Bible says "this happened here in X time period. Go see for yourself." The book explains pretty well why some writing is called "The Bible" and some other documents such as The Gospel of Thomas missed one or more stringent qualifications.
   
   Inquiring into both of these things won't necessarily make you Christian or cause you to have an experience. But you will learn something about yourself, and understand the mindset of intelligent people who approach these claims with an open mind and find something uniquely true.

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.

Some Christians like Lao-Zi. I think the Dao-De-Jing is full of some pretty right on stuff. The Dao tradition is pretty meaningful to me.


The historic Buddha was alright. I actually prefer later Buddhist sages to what information we have about the founder. Buddhism is pretty crazy diverse and interesting.


Muhammad's meh for me. Although there are some interesting aspects to Islamic theology, I don't personally find much meaning straight from Muhammad. Have had reasonably interesting theology talks with Muslims, though.

There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:

• Reason for God by Timothy Keller - from Amazon.
  
  If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
  
  
• Reasonable faith or the book with the same name, which sets out some pretty standard arguments.
  
  
• Stand to Reason
  
  
• Unbelievable is a podcast where it's pretty evenly debated.
  
  Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
  
  
• The case for the resurrection of Jesus
  
  
• The resurrection of the Son of God
  
  And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
  
  
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
  
  But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.

I used to keep this link to a whole bunch of stuff, but I don't have it on hand. If you're serious about this topic, I would recommend picking up Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. He goes into much more depth about evidence, the quality of evidence, and external evidence than I can get to in one comment box. I believe he goes into the Romans, Josephus and others as well.

I'm not the one that states that they're entire belief system is constructed around the ability to test a hypothesis repeatedly to prove that something's true. While Physics is awesome, and there are many repeatable things, "historical science" is not repeatable.

Lastly, sure I know what pi is, the fact that it does not repeat is amazing.

Hello,

This book is a robust examination of the Christian faith, looking not only at doctrine but the evidence for the truth claims of scripture.

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696

I greatly respect your attitude towards your husbands faith. The fact that you're here asking this speaks volumes.

edit: bonus recommdations

https://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Carpenter-Josh-McDowell/dp/1414326270/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

For me it comes down to the cumulative case for Christianity. I can imagine you must feel very hapy, joyful and open-minded. I would recommend a couple books to you:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
   
   2)http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803860&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity
   
   
2. http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803878&sr=1-1&keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict
   
   I think when you are done, that you will see that even with all of the legitimate questions and curiosities that Christianity has, it still is the most logical worldview out there. Also, I would encourage you to find churches outside of the Catholic church as the Catholic church keeps people in bondage. Try and find a solid baptist church. There is no perfect church, but we can find the perfection of love and holiness in Christ.
   
   Also, check out: http://answersforatheists.com/. This addresses many of the common questions and objections to Christianity from a very logical point of view.

Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P

I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6

Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:

Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1

The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.

https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

In this general realm, other good ones are Exploring our Matrix, Rethinking Biblical Christianity, Religion at the Margins and the excellently named (if rarely updated lately)Cognitive Discopants.

The beyond the box podcast is the only directly relevant audio I've found, though iTunes U has a number of good courses on the Old and New Testament and the culture they were written into. This is a good place to start.


And this heathen prefers the newer HCSB and thinks it is in general both more accurate and readable, though it sometimes displays a somewhat more fundamentalist/dispensationalist bias than the NRSV.

However, it is true if I could only own one Bible it would probably be the New Oxford Annotated w/ the NRSV for the excellent intros and notes.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X

It is actually more of a Freshman in college reading level, but this is the best one out there, I'd say. FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture.

As for summaries of the Bible, I honestly don't think there is a good one. You just need to read that book, man. It is slow at times, confusing at times, and there will always be a reason to quit. You just have to ford that stream.

A bit off topic, but you mentioned Taoism. I am (and always have been) a committed Christian, but LOVE Lao Tsu and the Tao te Ching. Have you read Christ the Eternal Tao written by an Orthodox monk? Awesome book!

Simply Christian by NT Wright.

From the back cover:
Why is justice fair? Why are so many people pursuing spirituality? Why do we crave relationship? And why is beauty so beautiful? N. T. Wright argues that each of these questions takes us into the mystery of who God is and what he wants from us. For two thousand years Christianity has claimed to answer these mysteries, and this renowned biblical scholar and Anglican bishop shows that it still does today. Like C. S. Lewis did in his classic Mere Christianity, Wright makes the case for Christian faith from the ground up, assuming that the reader is starting from ground zero with no predisposition to and perhaps even some negativity toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. His goal is to describe Christianity in as simple and accessible, yet hopefully attractive and exciting, a way as possible, both to say to outsides You might want to look at this further, and to say to insiders You may not have quite understood this bit clearly yet.

Edited to add: I see that someone else suggested this. I guess I should have read through suggestions first before suggesting a book.

2nd edit: If you do read this, I would love to hear an atheist's perspective on it.

> wild discrepancies in the NT

I'm reading The Story of Christianity right now by Justo Gonzalez. He addresses this in particular. It reminded me we need to understand that these discrepancies were not recently figured out. In fact, the discrepancies were discussed and debated all across the church, from Gaul to Egypt. But the strong conviction that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were genuine and could be verified trumped any discrepancy. In other words, the church elders included them in some respects because of their differences.

I'm reminded that these men and women, or even the diabolical old men church manipulators-tricksters/saints had every opportunity and plenty of time to change the NT to explicitly suit their purposes. I mean, why not take the differing genealogies and birth accounts and make them match. Revisionist history wasn't uncommon at all. Why leave all those discrepancies when you can edit it up nice and tidy? I'm convinced it's one reason: they had to protect the integrity of the accounts passed down to them.

I know this doesn't necessarily help you in your current situation. I've been where you are often in my life, been a believer for 25 years. Christianity is sometimes a long plodding in the same direction, sometimes it's being so on fire that folks come from miles just to watch you burn.

As far as the OT goes, I'm right there with you. I don't even feign to grasp the multifaceted character of God recounted through those centuries.

If you don't already have a Bible, my personal recommendation for a translation is the New American Bible, which has great introductions and notes. Another good translation is the New Revised Standard Version; two editions with excellent notes are the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible. (Both translations can be read freely online if you prefer.) Start with the New Testament.

The Experience of God is a good introduction to classical monotheism for someone coming from an atheist background. I also agree with the person who recommended Mere Christianity, which tries to stick closely to what historically has been generally agreed to be mainstream or orthodox Christianity. And not that I mean to bury you in books, but I'd also like to recommend a couple of ancient works, Confessions by St Augustine and The Consolation of Philosophy.

I've read two books which were recommended to me by this subreddit.

The first book I read was The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. I was already a Lewis fan, but I had ignored this book. It is now by and far in my top 3 books, and it's still an emotional roller-coaster just thinking about it. That man had an absurd talent for offering theological insight through allegory. I was able to read it in two sittings.

The other book was Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright. On top of me enjoying his insight, this book really cleaned up what I thought about death and the Christian afterlife, pre and post-resurrection. It was the theological insight I needed the hear on the topic, and it was very impactful on me.

Both are solid reads, and I'd recommend them to anyone.

James sire, the universe next door was on my reading list in college, along with a few others. Hers a list of books that might be helpful. That being said most useful apologetics books aren't going to be super easy to digest, if your looking for a place to start "The Case for Christ" is a great introduction.

Ok that was longer than a few moments, but here we go!



Well, for one thing, we have to understand that there is a vast cultural rift between 2012 America/Canada/Europe/whatever and the 1500ish BC Middle East.

Some of Old Testament regulations regarding slavery, marriage, etc. may seem harsh to us, but compared to the brutal cultural norms of that era, they were actually quite liberating. For the Bible to say that women, children, slaves, and foreigners had any rights at all was a revolutionary idea.

Still, the Old Testament commandments were not necessarily intended to illustrate God's vision of a perfect society.

Rather, they were intended to restrict evil as much as was reasonably possible within a somewhat barbaric culture (though they might say the same of our culture in many ways!), and ultimately to show them that their own attempt to perfectly follow every part of the law was hopeless- that as lawbreakers they needed a righteousness that went beyond mere behavior modification. That's where Jesus comes in.



Here is a link multiple links to a talk by Dr. John Dickson (PhD in Ancient History) that touches on a lot of your concerns (specifically violence in the Old Testament):

Part 1 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2531

Part 2 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2532

Part 3 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2533

Part 4 http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=2534




And here is a gigantic unorganized pile of some other somewhat relevant links. I can't absolutely vouch for everything, but they should be generally helpful.



http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/30/what-about-genocide-in-the-old-testament/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/did-god-condone-slavery.html

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/the-village-blog/what-are-christians-to-do-with-old-testament-law/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-woman-not-being-virgin

http://carm.org/slavery

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/you-may-buy-slaves

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/02/was-the-mosaic-law-meant-to-be-permanent/

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/13/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-1/

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/stone-rebellious-son

http://carm.org/questions/about-bible

http://carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask

http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

http://carm.org/introduction-bible-difficulties-and-bible-contradictions




Also, here are a couple of books you might be interested in. I have not personally read them, but I've heard good things.


http://www.amazon.com/God-Behaving-Badly-Testament-Sexist/dp/0830838260/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072751?tag=apture-20



I hope that helps! Thanks for your honest and respectful questions. :)

I'm not offended, I was just a little frustrated because I felt like I was having to repeat myself too much. I'm sorry if I got short with you.

>The question is can our God and Judge forgo the payment for sins and remain just?

Yes. It is perfectly just to forgive someone that has wronged you because you are the one wronged, and if you do not wish to have someone punished for the wrong doing, it ought to be your call to make.

The rest of this is going to take me going through and reading the scriptures you quoted and then responding, which will take a while, but I'm about to go to sleep. I'll hopefully be able to get back to you tomorrow though. And as for a book, I'm glad you asked! Our own /u/im_just_saying wrote this book a little while back on this exact topic. It's a short and easy read, but a good read, and I'm sure he'd be open to answer some questions for you that I haven't covered.

I encourage you to read some stuff by F.F. Bruce if you really are that interested in finding answers.

NT documents book
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/dp/0802822193

Overall docs
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-F-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=AARCB3GGBEWQDVEWA7G6

You can purchase both on Kindle for about $25.

PM if you are super interested in this an have a kindle. I'll gift you the copy of the NT one.

Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is very good, I think it's considered a classic.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is very good, heavily footnoted with references on where to read more.

Frances M. Young's From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background I've heard is good, although it may be more geared more towards scholars than you'd like.

Also heard Ramsay MacMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400 is good.

A really great book to read that touches on this topic very well I think is Heaven by Randy Alcorn. It's well researched, though he is clear on areas of speculation, for instance the reason for marriage not being in heaven is that there would no longer need to be a legal covenant, relationships would simply continue to develop on a higher level... if I remember correctly, it's been years since I read it. It's an excellent read though, I highly recommend it.

Last year I was fascinated with eschatology and found a rather extensive book on this subject. Heaven by Randy Alcorn. Some of the content of the book is speculation based on verses concerning this throughout the Bible, but as a whole it's an extensive overview of the afterlife. I grew up thinking the afterlife was heaven, a non-temporal realm as it's portrayed in the media.

I don't know how highly contested the new earth theory of the afterlife is among Christians, but from reading the verses associated with it I can't come to any other conclusion.

Anyways, good article. Wright is always a good read.

For when you get tired of heavy theology, take a look at Gonzalez's church history books. They're both thick and look scary, but they're incredibly smooth and light reading.

Here's the first, takes you all the way to the reformation:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/006185588X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/190-3299584-6991427

It gives a great overview, though mostly centres on the West. The perspective helps you understand a lot of the church, why certain beliefs became so prevalent after the events of the New Testament, and is seen as a legitimate source of info by secular sources (first read the two volumes for an undergrad course). They're a ton of fun

Here are some works that might interest you: (Introduction wise, not as a systematic defense)

Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell University Press, 1990.

Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism. St. Augustine's Press, 2011.

Plantinga, Alvin. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Eerdmans, 2015.

Pitre, Brant. The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. Image, 2016.

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press, 2017.

10 second simplified/short version:

1.) Theism is almost certainly true. (See Feser and Plantinga)

2.) Christianity best fits #1. (See Plantinga and Pitre)

Here ya go
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

Pretty much all you need here. This guy who wrote the book was a very atheist lawyer, something like he was challenged by a colleague to find evidence that the bible is fake and God isn't real. He took that challenge, and instead found so much evidence of God that it converted him to Christianity. Here's what he found, and you might like that from what I remember it's wordy but un-biased, just evidence all laid out. Very genuine and very real. Enjoy :)

Any of Bonhoeffer's works would be good. His Cost of Discipleship is excellent.

If you're up for some listening, Philip Cary's Luther: Law, Gospel, and Reformation lecture series is an excellent introduction to Lutheran thought and practice. Every once in a while it's on sale, and well worth picking up.

Cool! On evolution, Pete Enns' The Evolution of Adam. He takes very seriously the theological implications of evolution, and makes a strong case for Christianity's ability to not only accept it but gain new insights from it. For more of a textual look at Genesis and why a literal reading isn't the best one, John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One.

On both the non-historicity and cruelty of parts of the OT, check out Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God. This was a huge problem for me in accepting Christianity, probably the biggest hurdle I had to cross, and Stark's book did more than anything else to help me wrestle with it.

On miracles, I'm going to point you at a longer book, but it's well worth a read if you're interested in a strong case. Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus argues that the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead should not only be considered, it's actually the strongest one that's been proposed from a historical standpoint, as long as you're not ruling out the possibility that the universe might surprise you sometimes.

And this book I recommend to anybody even remotely intrigued by Christianity: The King Jesus Gospel. It's like seeing the story with entirely new eyes, and it knocks down a lot of really harmful misunderstandings of what the gospel's actually about.

1. I recommend you pick up a book on the history of the bible... reading it from a biblical scholar will probably help you here more than online opinions. For instance:
   http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353
   
   
2. This is something that is stated by the gospels and Paul... so basically the bible... so if he doesn't believe the bible then I can understand his position. I guess you need to ask yourself if him thinking Jesus a good teacher is good enough?
   
   > He asked me for any piece of evidence that incontrovertibly proves that Jesus is the Son of God.
   
   This is a fool's errand though... he might as well ask for Jesus DNA.

The Penguin/Pelican History of the Church series has been a pretty standard text for a while, though they're a bit dated now. I found them very useful, although they cover such large swathes of history that they can only cover each topic very briefly. The Reformation Book covers the whole Munich thing in like one page - a topic that Dan Carlin covers in a four and a half hour podcast.

These books will give you the standard classical view of church history, and they won't give you the latest in controversial research. But they're also quite good at giving a neutral point of view.

This is book one of the series.

> Evolution is not a fact

WRONG.

> it's a highly supported theory

Yes. It is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

From the article;

> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

As for this...

> It hasn't been tested, it can't be.

Yes it has. Many times. You'll find explanations of several tests in The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins or Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A Coyne.

> Besides, Genesis was written by Moses

No it wasn't.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344627342&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0099273675/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344627361&sr=1-1

Both of these books go into various depth on the authors of Genesis (which was actually written by two different people then mashed together later, hence the two different creation accounts in the text). Moses didn't write anything because he never actually existed. The Exodus never happened - there were never any Jewish slaves in Egypt.

For a brief overview of who wrote Genesis see the Wiki article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition

Yes, if changes from the original transcript were propagated in the period where things were in flux, and the "settled" version included those changes, it absolutely changes future translations.

This book is a worthwhile read on how we can see and find many of these changes and even reverse some of them by comparing different manuscripts and through knowledge of the original languages and their sources: https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I recommend it, if you're curious about the topic.

First, before I was a Christian, a very smart friend of mine (about to get his PhD in mathematics) told me why he believes, which was more of an apologetic argument. So, I started reading the bible. I would stop at every passage I thought was weird and search the net for what it meant or if it was true (dropped a lot of the OT here). This subreddit is great for that, but don't stop here. I also read some books off the Biologos list. The best one to me, though a bit dry, is Mike Licona's book on the resurrection.

SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Case for Jesus Course Introduction: Is Jesus Divine in the Synoptic Gospels? (Part 2 of 5)
Description | In part 2 of 5 of Dr. Brant Pitre's introductory videos to his forthcoming set on the Case for Jesus where he engages skeptical approaches to the Gospels (e.g., by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others), he discusses two miracles that, when read in context, help answer the question - is Jesus Divine?: First, Dr. Pitre discusses the famous stilling of the storm in the synoptic Gospels (in this instance, in Mark's account). This miracle of Jesus stilling the storm elicits from the Apostles to ask about J...
Length | 0:20:21


SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | The Case For Jesus | Brant Pitre, PhD
Description | A presentation given be Brant Pitre as part of the Newman Lecture Series at Our Lady of Wisdom Church and Catholic Student Center on the campus of the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Buy his book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
Length | 1:12:38






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

It seems pretty good. The ones mentioned in the top review (Harper Collins Study Bible and New Oxford Annotated Bible) are also really good.

HCSB and NOAB

I would probably recommend the NAOB, but the HCSB and the one you saw also look good.

1. Because the Bible isn't a theology textbook. It's an epic narrative. I highly recommend The Bible Project for help in understanding this.
   
2. Sounds like your definition of "Hell" is more influenced by the Middle Ages than the Bible. I recommend doing a word study on the words "hell (Gehenna)", "hades", and "the grave (Sheol)" in the Bible. You might be surprised by what you find. I also recommend reading The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis.
   
3. You're judged by your actions, not your ability to understand the universe. God is fully aware of our lack of awareness, and will take that into account.
   
4. Ah, the Election debate. This is where the "Bible is an epic narrative" thing becomes very important. Election/Predestination in the Bible is about Israel's role in God's plan. It's not about who gets to go to Heaven. God planned/elected/predestined/pre-purposed/chose Israel to have a particular role to play in His plan to save humanity from our slavery to sin. That role was fulfilled through Jesus (the climax of the epic narrative). God didn't predestine people for Heaven/Hell, rather He chose one people-group to be his instrument of redemption for the world. I recommend this video for help understanding the high-level epic narrative and Israel's purpose in it.
   
5. Actually, I would argue the Bible has a pretty compelling answer: Humans.
   
6. Having the Spirit residing in you doesn't guarantee intellectual agreement. It's not like you get an information download when you become a Christian. We still have to work through issues where we disagree, but if we have the Spirit in us, we will be able to do so in love.

> [I] regard Jesus as an enlightened (divine) being the same as a Bodhisattva. Can you make any suggestions for books that will help me to undertand more about Jesus' teachings from this perspective?

I think you'll struggle to understand Jesus from that perspective. A lot of his teachings just won't make sense. You'd be better off approaching him from the perspective of 2nd Temple Judaism, which NT Wright is quite good at explaining http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Christian-Christianity-Makes-Sense/dp/0061920622/

A Christian's faith in God is not of their own doing, it's a gift from God. One must be obedient before one can have faith. Some chapters of this book helped me to understand this concept.

I read it, not a big fan of Craig and like I said, I passionately disagree with PSA so there's little point in trying to convince me of it's validity. But on a different note, if you are interested in learning more about non-PSA views of the cross, I highly recommend this book that I just read the other day:

http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-And-How-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398025817&sr=8-1&keywords=salvation+and+how+we+got+it+wrong

Augustine's Confessions is pretty good, and relatively short.

The Early Church by Henry Chadwick is decent, shortish and pretty readable.

I'll throw Randy Alcorn's Heaven in the mix. Its a little long winded and has a candid evangelical slant but his attitude agrees with you, if not all of his theology. He emphasizes stewardship as well as pointing out there will be work to do when heaven comes to earth. It won't be all harps, clouds and singing songs.

Bart Ehrman has a number of good books on this subject. I just finished Misquoting Jesus and am in the middle of Forged. Ehrman has a nice writing style that is easy to read.

The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez would be a fantastic place to start. Im sure its not perfect, but I have been reading it for the past few weeks and its been great.

Shirley C. Guthrie's Christian Doctrine, Revised Edition is a fairly accessible, and broad introduction to systematic theology.

As for church history I think Justo L. Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity is a great overview.

• Justo Gonzalez ... am I right everyone??
  
  
• Story of Christianity Volume 1: http://amzn.to/1uymlGu
  
• Story of Christianity Volume 2: http://amzn.to/1y6mYVm
  
• Best $30-$40 you'll ever spend on books!
  
  
• I only know because I run a book review website ... :-D
  www.thebravereviews.com

The Catholic Church teaches that all religions have some level of Truth to them (capital T). God reveals himself to different peoples in different ways, the Catholics just think they're "more right" than the rest.

Denominations that say that could be right, they could be wrong. In the end, everyone has to decide their own way.

Personally, my view on heaven and hell are pretty close to what C.S. Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce - Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever - all people choose where they will wind up, either with God or apart from Him. Since God is love, then being apart from him for all eternity would be hell. Each person must choose, and if you choose not to believe, well, why would you want to spend eternity with something you don't believe exists?

Maybe you can start with Peter Enns, a Christian professor explaining why Biblical Inerrancy is, well, an errant idea in "The Bible Tells Me So - Why defending scripture has made us unable to read it."

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture-ebook/dp/B00H7LXHJQ

Then, going and reading mainstream biblical scholarship is both enlightening and fascinating - such as Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible".

https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

Robert Grant's Augustus to Constantine is, in my opinion, the absolute best book on the subject.

Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is a classic

Everything by Peter Brown is excellent.

I don't know what kind of spare money you have, but I highly recommend you read Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) from /u/im_just_saying. He does a really good job of talking about where the idea of PSA came from, and what the predominant theory of atonement was in early Christianity. For a brief overview of it read about the Christus Victor wiki

Penal substitution isn't an idea that's present in the OT. Jewish animal sacrifices were never about God punishing an innocent animal in order to forgive the people of Israel.

To quote /u/Rrrrrrr777:

>"Forgiveness is obtained in Judaism by admitting that you've done something wrong, working to correct it, and deciding not to do it anymore. The sacrifices were an integral part of daily life, but they were an outward symbolic representation that helped to bring people closer to God by being forced to confront death head-on in the hopes that the realization would reaffirm their commitment to keeping the commandments to the best of their ability."

Also, if you're questioning PSA, I highly recommend reading Salvation (And How We Got It Wrong) by our very own /u/im_just_saying. It's a very short and accessible book, and really helped me to grasp the flaws inherent in penal substitution.

Full-throatedly endorse Justo L. González's engaging and readable survey, The Story of Christianity.

Reviews here.

If you want to get intellectual, it is worth looking into how exactly the New Testament came together..rather than just learning the theology within it. This book is a good place to start.

I found this one through a friend in Seminary School. Great resource.

http://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700

Justo Gonzalez has a [two volume history of Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Christianity-Vol-Reformation/dp/006185588X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372722148&sr=8-1&keywords=Justo+Gonzalez), the first covers up to the reformation. Its a pretty good overview, and covers the councils and other key events well.

I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It sounds like just the thing you are looking for. I would also recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God.

Part 3: Book recommendations:

If you want to dig deep into this topic, here are some book recommendations. Perhaps you would want to read N.T. Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series (this is very heavy, scholarly reading). N.T. Wright is the foremost scholar on the New Testament and this is possibly the most thorough literature on the historical Jesus, early Christianity and the Apostle Paul:

https://www.logos.com/product/37361/christian-origins-and-the-question-of-god-series

Anything by N.T. Wright is well worth reading (Simply Christian and Surprised by Hope would be good introductions). Likewise, anything by Ravi Zacharias.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Nabeel-Qureshi/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ANabeel%20Qureshi

No God But One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517050609&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ANabeel+Qureshi

On Guard by William Lane Craig: https://www.amazon.ca/Guard-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1434764885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526542104&sr=8-1&keywords=on+guard+william+lane+craig

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel: https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308

Bonus reading: Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526542237&sr=1-1&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.ca/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

Read anything by G.K. Chesterton, especially, The Everlasting Man


Answers to Common Objections and Questions:

Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-resurrection-and-christian-origins/

The Evidence for Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Christianity's Centerpiece: http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ_as_Christianitys_Centerpiece_FullArticle?fbclid=IwAR0oE22vtBvR2u--R78tSyW-51OpIbWBfWDNH2Ep8miBc9W6uUJMwMsz0yk

Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions/

Accompanying video to the link above: Why is Christianity True?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qJPZySo7A

How Do You Know Christianity Is the One True Way of Living? | Abdu Murray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ze_SVg-0E&app=desktop

What makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions? Verifiability is a Christian Distinctive: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/verifiability-is-a-christian-distinctive/

Is Jesus God? (Feat. Craig, Strobel, Habermas, Licona, Qureshi...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dLoKCyDDAg&app=desktop

How Can Understanding Eyewitness Testimony Help Us Evaluate the Gospels?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tCDDsPXQSQ&app=desktop

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection - Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection? - Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hD7w1Uja2o

‪Questioning Jesus: Critically Considering Christian Claims with Dr. Nabeel Qureshi‬: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UpuEDp4ObA

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? | Yale 2014 | William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAOc6ctw1s&app=desktop

Historical Resurrection of Christ?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Dc01HVlaM

‪Are The New Testament Documents Historically Credible?: ‬https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgdsIaqFAp4

Are the Gospels Accurate?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxrDy_G8h88

(Answer to the common objection: ‘the gospels are anonymous’)
Gospel Authorship—Who Cares?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/gospel-authorshipwho-cares

What is the Evidence That Jesus Appeared Alive After His Death?: https://youtu.be/96WIa3pZISE

On Extra-Biblical Sources for Jesus' Post-Mortem Appearances: https://youtu.be/-Dbx7PPIIsQ

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Or Was It A Hoax By His Followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELRKdxV7Wk

Follow up to the previous video: ‪Did Jesus rise from the dead, or was it hallucinations by his followers?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29224I3x_M0&feature=youtu.be‬

‪Did the Disciples Invent the Resurrection?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOHUWsNDPZc‬

‪‬Facts to show the Resurrection is not fiction, by William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AduPVkqbis

‪‬Did Paul actually see the risen Jesus, or did he simply have some sort of vision?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yNdynwqtWI&t

What Do You Mean By ‘Literal?’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk

Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection: https://youtu.be/4iyxR8uE9GQ?t=1s

Death, Resurrection and Afterlife: https://youtu.be/HXAc_x_egk4?t=1s

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?: https://youtu.be/KnkNKIJ_dnw?t=1s

4 Historical Facts That Prove Jesus Really Did Rise From The Dead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmKg62GDqF4

‪What About Pre-Christ Resurrection Myths?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrCYVk6xrXg‬

Jesus and Pagan Mythology: Is Jesus A Copied Myth or Real Person?: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jesus-and-pagan-mythology/

Zeitgeist - Is Jesus A Myth: https://alwaysbeready.com/zeitgeist-the-movie

Did Greco-Roman myths influence the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pt9rlG7ABo&app=desktop

‪Does the Resurrection Require Extraordinary Evidence?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLN30A0vmlo‬

Moral Argument For God’s Existence: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Does Life Have Meaning?: https://youtu.be/it7mhQ8fEq0

‪Are there Inconsistencies Between the Four Gospels?: https://youtu.be/sgdsIaqFAp4‬

‪Why Are There Differences in the Resurrection Accounts?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz2lVGmXFI‬

Don't the Gospels Contradict One Another?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt9kCwttVY

Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zimP8m3_hCk

Why the Gospels Can Differ, Yet Still Be Reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An5wU2hxIfM

Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new-testament-gospels-are-reliable/

Find Contradictions in the Bible All You Want: https://www.thepoachedegg.net/2019/05/apologetics-find-contradictions-in-the-bible-all-you-want.html

The Case for the Historicity and Deity of Jesus: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/

Bart Ehrman is one of the world's most renowned ancient historians/New Testament scholars, and he is an atheist. Listen to what he has to say on the matter of Jesus' existence: ‪The Historical Jesus DID Exist - Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww‬

‪Bart D Ehrman About the Historical Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U6TJ4cwSo‬

Extra-Biblical evidence: In addition to the gospel accounts and the letters from the Apostle Paul, we have sources outside the New Testament with references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, etc:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Is There Extrabiblical Evidence About Jesus' Life?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U&app=desktop

How do we know Jesus was really who he said he was?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ksvhHEoMLM&app=desktop


YouTube Channels to browse:

William Lane Craig - ReasonableFaithOrg: https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg?app=desktop

drcraigvideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos?app=desktop

Ravi Zacharias - Ravi Zacharias International Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/user/rzimmedia?app=desktop

J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity with J. Warner Wallace: https://www.youtube.com/user/pleaseconvinceme/featured?disable_polymer=1

The Bible Project: https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject

Unbelievable?: https://www.youtube.com/user/PremierUnbelievable

David Wood - Acts17Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

Nabeel Qureshi - NQMinistries: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCepxnLs6GWAxAyI8m2U9s7A/featured?disable_polymer=1

Randy Alcorn - Eternal Perspective Ministries with Randy Alcorn: https://www.youtube.com/user/eternalperspectives?app=desktop

Frank Turek - Cross Examined: https://www.youtube.com/user/TurekVideo

Brian Holdsworth: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdsworthdesign

Friend, it's time to get into philosophy, because let me tell you, it is FAR from an open and shut case when it comes to whether or not it is logical to believe in God.

It's not an easy or a simple topic, and if you want to defend your faith you're going to need to argue about things like metaphysics.
I'll give you some links to get you started:

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Logic_and_the_Absolute_Platonic_and_Christian_Views-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098

http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2000HumeAbjectFailure.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Other_Minds

> Even in the Old Testament individual sins needed atonement and covering.

Yet the place for dealing with that was wholly communal.

> Jesus' blood covers our sins on an individual level

I've just read this book which notes, when we talk of Jesus's sacrifice, he is referred to as our Mercy Seat – again, the place of communal appeal to God for forgiveness of the nation's sin(s). No doubt those sins are committed by individuals, but God relates his forgiveness to the whole.

I don't doubt we are on some level saved individually, though. Rather, is our experience as one who is already "washed in the blood" one that approximates a "personal relationship with Jesus"?

I don't have this problem. While I am a creationist myself, I'm open to "how" and for "how much time" did it take. I don't care to take a strong position on literal seven days, seven thousand years, or 13.8 billion years.. God created everything (apart from Man) ex nihilo and this is all that matters in the end of the day.

I suggest reading this book from Christian Philosopher dr Alvin Plantinga.

Here is an excellent systematic theology that will show you what the Bible teaches about itself. Hope this helps.

https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700

So you admit (after, what's it been, 7 opportunities) you have no evidence for your all-encompassing, foundational assertion then?

You'd be smart to investigate this, and see how you not only have no evidence for what you are saying, but that pure naturalism actually contradicts all basis for reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

And it would be alright to criticize WLC, if, you know, Hume's Law didn't exist. But since it does, you can't assert any sort of moral superiority - heck, morality even - without it being a completely arbitrary assertion on your part. In fact, the only reason you think the murder of children is wrong is because you've been profoundly influenced by Christian thought and western society. If you grew up in a place where it was acceptable, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

(Whether or not events like these even happened is a topic we haven't bothered to touch upon. WLC has spoken, I believe, along the lines of Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? and questioned the record since there isn't much evidence for these conquests, and their narrative similarity to other, pagan conquest narratives).

As for me, I believe science works because God created an ordered universe that finds God as its first cause. We expect to find natural laws because we believe in a law giver. This is what the first scientists believed as well (think Newton, etc). http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319304844&sr=8-3

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.

I sincerely doubt you have. Read a book by a historian on the matter. I recommend this one.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

or this one is also good.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

Options:

1. Jesus as a human told people. People wrote it down or told people who wrote it down.
   
   
2. God told people. People wrote it down or told people who wrote it down.
   
   
3. People made it up, the stories are there too explain something.
   
   
4. The Gospels are a work of fiction.
   
   Most Christians will think 1 or 2, some may think 3. The reason for why people may believe in the gospels is well covered material. As someone else suggested, The Case for Jesus is a good read.

Before you can answer that question, you need to understand the composition of the book of Genesis. For one thing, it seems to have multiple authors, as identified by the Documentary Hypothesis. There are at least four authors, identified as J, E, P, and D, as well as R, one or more redactors who stitched the different accounts together. J can be identified even in translations, by the different name that it uses for God (J uses the name "YHWH," which translators often write as "LORD" in small caps).

When people talk about a literal interpretation of Genesis, they are almost always referencing Genesis 1, as told by the E source. However, Genesis 2:4-25 (the J version of the creation account) is all but ignored. But if a literal interpretation is what you're after, there's a problem here because the two accounts don't entirely line up.

Here is the E order of creation in Genesis 1:

1. Earth and light
   
2. Sky
   
3. Seas, dry land, plants
   
4. Stars, the sun and the moon
   
5. Sea creatures and flying creatures
   
6. Land animals and then man
   
   Now here is the J order of creation in Genesis 2:4 and following:
   
   
7. Heaven and earth
   
8. Mist rising from the ground
   
9. Man
   
10. Plants and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
    
11. Animals
    
12. Woman
    
    Comparing the two lists, you can see the problem with trying to force a literal interpretation on the text. The E source has humans created very last. The J source has man created before plants and animals.
    
    For more information on the Documentary Hypothesis, please read, Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman.

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.

I'd recommend Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism. It's a very dense and complex book, but you're asking some of the deeper questions of life, so don't be too surprised. CS Lewis also has a good book on miracles that's a shorter and more accessible read, if you like the time to chew through Plantinga's arcane tome.

Specifically related to your question about miracles, he advocates that a Christian cosmology views the universe as an open system, in contrast to the closed system cosmology of pure naturalism.

Depends on what your gonna take as evidence. If you want unanimous, written records that Jesus the son of Joseph was resurrected, there is none(well, Gospels, but you're not Christian, so yeah). That being said here's a [debate from my favorite agnostic-atheist scholar, Bart Erhman, about the historicity of Jesus' ressurection ] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac) and here's a book. Here's another video too, but I'm really not too fond of it.

Disclaimer, I haven't read the book, the Priest at my local Catholic church recommended it however.

I have been struggling with the same exact things...My eyes were opened by this article about Pauls perception of the Old Testament God. This is also a very common struggle amongst many Christians.
http://sojo.net/magazine/2012/01/way-peace-and-grace

Also, a really good recent book is out called "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

Both of these are definitely worth reading.

Good book by Stroble, ‘The case for Christ ‘this helps

Been reading Misquoting Jesus lately. It's a basic and well written introduction to biblical scholarship. The author does point out that the KJV did not use the best possible sources available so there is that. The author gets into some depth involving the earliest source material for the bible being letters written in Greek being copied and recopied to be circulated among the faithful throughout the known world. Because of this, there are many small errors over the centuries and not a few large ones as well. I won't get into too much detail, but he does make the statement that there are more discrepancies between the source material, than there are words in the new testament. It's definitely an eye opener.

If you want some books to read on how science and faith can be reconciled, I recommend The Language of God and Where the conflict really lies.

This video on God and evolution is really cool

Also, William Lane Craig did a podcast on the topic of Creationism and Evolution

Also, see this answer from WLC: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolutionary-theory-and-theism

Then I suppose I'd recommend something like the Oxford Study Bible. It's got basically everything you'd want, and includes the entirety of the Roman, Slavic, and Greek Canons

The Early Church by Henry Chadwick is a great brief intro to the first ~1000 years of Christianity.