Best christology books according to redditors
We found 237 Reddit comments discussing the best christology books. We ranked the 98 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 237 Reddit comments discussing the best christology books. We ranked the 98 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Don't buy them a Dawkins book, as /u/Rugger01 suggests. Make it The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel in which Robert Price eviscerates Strobel.
>Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.
I started with "Christological Controversies". It's primary source documents (and the introduction provides really useful context) from the first through fourth centuries, all of which where "milestones" in the development of the Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ.
Justin Martyr's First Apology is really interesting because he's so early in the Church that he will not come right out and say "Jesus Christ is God", for example. It's not included in that book I sent you, because it wasn't a Christological work per se, but it's a good example of how pre-niceaen Catholics were talking.
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "1"
Here is link number 2 - Previous text "2"
Here is link number 3 - Previous text "3"
Here is link number 4 - Previous text "4"
Here is link number 5 - Previous text "5"
Here is link number 6 - Previous text "6"
----
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete
You err when you conflate causal links with temporal links.
If you want to understand Reformed soteriology (which I would unfortunately question based on this thread), I would recommend reading John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
Let me quote a few relevant portions:
> The priority of regeneration might create the impression that a person could be regenerated and yet not converted. These passages in 1 John (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18) should correct any such misapprehension. We need to remember again that the leading emphasis in these passages is the invariable concomittance of regeneraton and the other graces mentioned.
> We must not think of regeneration as something which can be abstracted from the saving exercises which are its effects...We are warned and advised, therefore, that while regeneration is the actions of God and of God alone we must never conceive of this action as separable from the activities of saving grace on our part which are the necessary and appropriate effects of God's grace in us.
So...there you have it. Your post is doing exactly what Murray says that Reformed theology does not and cannot do regarding regeneration.
As for your objection to the Lordship of Christ, your issue is not so much with Reformed thought as with the New Testament. Christ is the one who proclaimed that He had all authority (Matthew 28). Paul expands this in our understanding in Ephesians where he emphasizes that Christ rules and reigns right now over all things. Christ is king over all at this moment - over all people, all nations, all governments, all associations...whether they recognize it or not. What could be wrong about calling people to recognize what is already true?
Wait until you see this book. https://www.amazon.com/Guinea-Pig-Nativity-Bloomsbury/dp/1408844796/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=guinea+pig+nativity&qid=1571115883&sr=8-1
It's called Open Theism. If you're at all serious about your inquiry, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God is a good academic place to start. It's not light reading though. I respect Greg Boyd enough to suggest God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God as well, though I haven't read it myself.
It's difficult to talk about a biblical God that doesn't have all power or know all things. That sort of language is employed often enough in the Bible.
Openness talks about God choosing to not exercise the power that He could, limiting himself in creating creatures with actual libertarian free will.
Since, the argument goes, true libertarian free will is incompatible with determinism, the future doesn't exist.
It isn't that God doesn't know the future. God knows everything. The future simply doesn't exist yet to be known.
When God or God's prophets make a statement about the future, it isn't due to knowledge of what will be, it is primarily due to God's knowledge of what he will do.
Say I tell you that next Wednesday I'm going to go to Walmart. If next Wednesday I'm at Walmart, it isn't because I had some special insight into the future, it's because I knew what I planned on doing. My truck could break down, I could catch cold, or any number of things might prevent me from going; but in all likelyhood I'd be there.
Now, consider God, a being who even in the most open views of God is 'most powerful'. When he says that next Wednesday he is going to be at Walmart; he's going to be at Walmart.
Also, Open Theism raises a lot of questions about God's immutability and impassibility. These are the ideas that God is unchangeable and therefore never the recipient of actions and only ever the subject of actions.
A lot of the ideas we have about omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability actually find their roots in Greek philosophy. That isn't necessarily bad though, at least not in and of itself.
There are a good handful of places in the Bible where God "repents" and changes his mind about things. These are often looked at as anthropomorphisms, but the argument for those instances being anthropomorphisms usually don't get much more deep than, "it isn't consistent with the picture of God I have, so therefore I refuse to accept that God could change".
I bought into Open Theism completely a couple of years ago, now I'm in the process of going back through and reevaluating things.
The similarities of the crucifixion and resurrection to pagan stories are usually overstated.
Richard Carrier has one book out and another on the way addressing the issue from a more scholarly direction. Proving History is the first book. The second is due out in a few months if I remember correctly.
Robert M. Price also has a good work on the subject. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems
Start with those two. They both have talks on YouTube about the historicity of the gospels. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm utterly convinced, but they are pretty compelling. Carrier and Eherman have had a bit of a feud over the issue and again, Carrier seems to have the better argument.
There are several places to start with social memory theory. Full disclosure, I'm all aboard the memory approach and their critiques on the criteria approach.
Here's a few places to start:
That should be enough to get started. I think the Kirk and Thatcher article and Keith's articles are a good place to start with summaries of the positions within social memory research into the Gospels.
This might be a good follow up book:
The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert Price
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
Brant Pitre and John Bergsma just put out an excellent guide to the Old Testament. It emphasizes how the Gospel and the letters of the Apostles are firmly positioned as a continuation and recalibration of the liturgical relationship with God presented in Old Testament, which is something Protestants will obviously try to downplay:
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Introduction-Bible-Old-Testament/dp/1586177222
For the New Testament, I recommend Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth series. It's not a chapter by chapter breakdown but rather a scholarly look at each of the main and recurring themes. The first book, about Jesus's ministry, is mostly in order of the Gospel narrative:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Baptism-Jordan-Transfiguration/dp/1586171984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541046537&sr=8-2&keywords=Jesus+Of+Nazareth
There are so many interpretations of the cross that have been embraced at different points throughout the history of Christianity. I think the cross is one of the most meaning-filled events in history that not one of these interpretations can contain its meaning. It's overflowing with meaning. Personally, I can't reconcile to myself interpretations wherein God sets up schema and then is backed into a corner, forced to do something because of the schema God created. I'd suggest checking out Tony Jones' ebook, A Better Atonement, if you're interested in learning more about these other theories. You've probably heard of Christus Victor, for example, which has had a bit of resurgence as of late. If I have time, I'll add some more of my thoughts to this comment. Hope this helps a little!
Edit: Here's a redditor describing a handful of these theories.
The Case Against The Case For Christ
>
actuallyprobably*
That's the best we can do, since the evidence is suspiciously lacking and internally contradictory.
1
2
3 4
5 6
Happy Ēostre, and happy reading!
> Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ.
is this a bit like watching aquatic ape theorists argue against creationism?
Here's a good book that explores these concepts: http://www.amazon.com/Saved-Sacrifice-A-Theology-Cross/dp/0802832156
And an overview of the book: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/01/voice-of-scapegoat-series.html
Fair witness: this line of thinking is in part a response to and denunciation of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
If you're really interested, read something sensible on the topic, e.g., https://www.amazon.co.uk/Saved-Sacrifice-Theology-S-Mark-Heim/dp/0802832156
> Daniel L. Migliore
>
>Princeton Theological Seminary
>
>"Drawing extensively from Rene Girard's analysis of the scapegoat mechanism, Mark Heim has written a not-to-be-missed work on the unmasking of sacrificial violence by the biblical witness. He offers stunning interpretations of Old and New Testament texts as he marshals his argument that the event of the cross narrated in the Gospels is universally significant not because it repeats the deadly cycle of sacrifice present in all societies and in all religious ritual and myth but because it reverses this cycle and rescues us from the practice of scapegoating sacrifice and the violence it both hides and perpetuates. This is a theology of the cross in a bold new key."
The Case Against the Case for Christ by Robert Price would be more opportune.
You may interested in Hindu views of Jesus, some famous swamis like Vivekananda and Prabhavananda took an interest in him, they both did outreach for English-speaking audiences. The New Testament has certainly been engaged with by "eastern" religious figures, but nothing from that has made its way into "western" scholarship.
I'd especially recommend Swami Prabhavananda's article What Christ Means to Me, and for further reading his book The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta.
EDIT: paging OP /r/open_eyes789, in case he missed it
> https://www.amazon.com/Lifetimes-When-Jesus-Buddha-Other/dp/1401923151/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-2&keywords=jesus+and+buddha
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Sayings-Seastone/dp/1569751692/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+and+buddha
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-20th-Anniversary/dp/159448239X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-3&keywords=jesus+and+buddha
It's been done in book form, by Robert M Price, no less.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
The Christological Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought) (an accessible anthology of primary texts)
From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background by Frances M Young
The Making of the Creeds by Frances M Young
Classical Christian Doctrine by Ronald Heine
For Us and for Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church by Stephen J. Nichols
I definitely second the recommendation of reading the New Testament! The Catechism is also a great resource for the details of the faith.
But if, u/powrightinthe_kissa, you find the Catechism a bit overwhelming, I would also like to recommend some other books by some popular authors on the faith, to give a broader overview. Any one of these books would be great so feel free to pick out one or two of what I recommended for your consideration.
Our previous pope, Pope Benedict, was an amazing theologian! He wrote some excellent books. I would recommend Jesus of Nazareth and Introduction to Christianity.
Mere Christianity is a great explanation of general Christian theology and the Christian narrative of the world. The apologetics of Mere Christianity are a bit watered down so I wouldn't read it for its apologetics (for that I would go to other authors, like Fesser or Craig) but Mere Christianity is great for basic theology.
Fr. Barron is also a great explainer of the faith, I hear Word on Fire would provide a good introduction.
Two relevant books that I haven't read yet (they're on my very long list):
Jesus the Magician - Morton Smith
Jesus the Sorcerer - Robert Conner
There is a book by Robert Price, "The case against the case for Christ" where he tears the book apart.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Against-Christ-Testament/dp/1578840058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043654&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+against+the+case+for+christ
Another book directly addressing the book in question
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Challenging-Verdict-Cross-Examination-Christ%2522-Cross-examination/dp/0968925901/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043843&sr=8-1&keywords=challenging+the+verdict
Another review of the book on infidels
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
TL;DR If you critically look at his arguments, they don't hold up.
Some basics.
Roy Varghese has a fascinating approach to this. Vid
And his book, The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus., which I have yet to read.
Religion and magic are two sides of the same coin. I found this book compelling, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? The author Morton Smith was a renowned historian at Columbia University.
A few things I recall:
Jesus used magic words that were never translated from their original Aramaic. They would lose their power.
Jesus for the first 300 years was depicted using a magic wand.
Exorcisms and spirit possessions were all part of this magical world view.
Old reddit thread on this topic
I don't want to insult you by implying that you are ignorant as you did to me. Let me just say this, I am very well read on both subjects. Religious studies is the obsession of my life. In fact I am married to a woman who is a professor of comparative religious studies because she was one of the very few people I could have a decent conversation with about these subjects. I don't want to spend the whole night looking up references to prove something to you. I would invite you to study the similarities between the teachings of these two masters. I have a feeling that you wont. If you sounded a bit less hostile and even remotely willing to learn, I would have walked you through it point-by-point.
I was once just as sure as you are that they were totally different messages. I probably would have gotten angry just like you if those assumptions were challenged. I understand there are massive differences between how the religions that they spawned operate and the official Dogma of those bodies.
I will leave you with just one book that makes my argument in a simple and concise way. You can choose whether you would like to investigate it yourself or not.
I'm not implying I'm smarter than you. I simply had the right person come along, at the right time and show me the similarities. He recommended some books. I read them and now it's impossible for me not to recognize. It's hard to see through all the noise that surrounds both of these religions especially Christianity. you have to remember that their own followers can't even agree on what they really were trying to say.
I guess the choice will hinge on whether your desire for knowledge is greater than your desire to be right.
Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Seastone) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1569751692/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_qQq-BbZC87AP9
I'm Catholic, but I think you're coming from absolutely the right direction. It's inexcusable to dismiss all the innocent, horrific suffering in the world as being part of some abstract "higher purpose" or vague justification. Anyone who does is full of shit and needs to take a serious look at what they're purporting to believe in. I think these are difficult questions that need to be asked if you want to say that you really believe in God. A lot of Christians kind of brush over them, bristle when you state the facts, when you so much hint at the slightest challenge to their faith. But if they do, then their faith is shaky to begin with.
Jurgen Moltmann is a theologian who discusses theodicy (the problem of evil) in a way that is very fascinating. I recently read The Crucified God which addresses it pretty well.
I find it incredibly difficult to come to terms with the amount of suffering in this world. I struggle with it. I'm gonna fight it, I'm gonna keep fighting it, and I think that's what we're meant to do. That's the point of Christ. Christ is taking up the cross, he's taking up the suffering of the world, he's protesting God, he's protesting himself, he's encouraging, demanding this continual protest of evil and suffering in the world rather than justifying it.
It's fascinating fucking stuff.
Learning to read Christ figuratively. Spiritual language is symbolic, for example:
"Enter the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the [true] gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." -Jesus, Matthew 7:13
In my view, "enter the narrow gate" is not about exclusionary sectarianism, but rather a call to live a life dedicated firmly to spiritual ideals: compassion, forgiveness, gratitude, and love. This world is a difficult place. The easier, broader way is to be spiritually complacent, judgmental, selfish, indulge in temptations, and fall victim to negativity in general. The ego is a very worthy adversary-- in this world, living a life of unity and Oneness with God takes a repeated, concerted effort.
Additionally, reconciling Christ with other spiritual masters, the Buddha and a variety of Hindu saints... as you continue your interfaith research you'll see more and more similarities.
This book eloquently explains Eastern and Western philosophies and their connective precepts in a digestible way:
The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta https://www.amazon.com/dp/0874810507/ref=cm_sw_r_api_PLvLxbNPSEPQK
Dr. Robert M. Price is arguably the greatest New Testament scholar of our time.
What I admire most about Dr. Price is that he encourages everyone to read and study and think for themselves and come up with their own conclusions. When there is very little evidence for a solid conclusion, he often says something like, "It seems to me that this is the case, but I could be wrong."
He is ignored by Christian New Testament scholars because he finds no evidence for miracles and no evidence to believe in the "Super Man" Jesus.
He is mostly ignored by secular New Testament scholars because he finds very little evidence for the historical man Jesus, and therefore doubts that the "Clark Kent" Jesus ever existed. Paraphrase: "There could have been an historical Jesus and I could be wrong, but I just don't think the evidence is there to support a definite conclusion."
Not too long ago the movie 'The Case for Christ' was released. This was based loosely on Lee Stroble's book "The Case for Christ". In 2010 in a response to Lee Strobles' book, Dr. Price published his book "The Case Against the Case for Christ."
This is an excellent read for anyone interested in the subject.
The Case Against the Case for Christ
>Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.
edit: spelling, got the link correct
I think that Jesus shared a lot of common teaching with them. For anyone who's interested in this, I'd highly recommend "Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu: The Parallel Sayings" and "Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings". I haven't done enough study on Mohammad yet, sadly. I intend to do so soon.
Out of interest, have you read The Case Against The Case For Christ?
Quite a scathing comment in the Amazon comments (not that I pay much attention to that without reading the book myself):
>You see when Lee Strobel wrote his book, "The Case for Christ" it was a feel good book that was short on facts and long on fluff. It was easy to digest because there wasn't much there for your brain to do. It was rather a lot like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.
My interest is piqued enough to have quick look at both books though.
I've always felt as though the evidence for the biblical Jesus isn't sufficient for me, but I've always been on the look out for new information that makes me change my mind.
=-==========-=
Edit - I've been reading the book. Had to get to page 28 before any testable claim was made:
>Acts ends apparently unfinished-Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book
was written before Paul was put to death." Blomberg was getting more wound up as he went. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part-the gospel of Luke-must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so." He sat back in his chair with an air of triumph. "Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great," he said, "that's like a news flash!" Indeed, that was impressive, closing the gap between the events of Jesus' life and the writing of the gospels to the point where it was negligible by historical standards.
The author is declaring "case closed" on the timeline of the early bible based on the fact that the book of Acts remains unfinished? An assumption about why the book remained unfinished is followed by assumption after assumption. Scrolling through the rest of the book, the logic is just as weak throughout.
He is not looking at this from an evidence-based perspective, he is writing a story about a journey from unbelief to belief while skipping over the many leaps of faith it required for him to get there.
I wanted this to be a good book, but I partly agree with the quote in the Amazon review, this is a feel-good book written for Christians who are already convinced and are merely wanting some apologetics to go with it.
Just putting my thoughts out there.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Baptism-Jordan-Transfiguration/dp/1586171984
Pope Benedict basically rescues Jesus from the historical critical method.
BTW, you don't really believe that the only evidence we have for Jesus is the bible do you?
[This might be of some interest to you, The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus.
I can recommend a few things.
First, there's this blog that attempts to show that libertarian free will is consistent with perfect divine foreknowledge.
http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-free-will-compatible-with-gods.html
Then there's this book by Jonathan Edwards on The Freedom of the Will. There's a chapter in this book where Edwards agues the libertarian freedom is not consistent with divine foreknowledge.
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Jonathan%20Edwards%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Will.pdf
Check out Section XII on page 73.
There's this book by William Lane Craig called The Only Wise God where he uses Molinism to show that free will and perfect foreknowledge are compatible.
https://www.amazon.com/Only-Wise-God-Compatibility-Foreknowledge/dp/1579103162/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543020991&sr=8-1
Then there's this book by Gregory Boyd called God of the Possible, where he argues that God does not know the future perfectly because there is no truth value to future tensed statements about people's free choices.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021053&sr=8-14
Finally, there's this book called Four Views On Divine Providence where people with various opinions explain their point of view and why they disagree with each other.
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Divine-Providence-Counterpoints/dp/0310325129/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021516&sr=8-1&
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
https://celsus.blog/2013/08/24/another-case-of-apologetic-dishonesty-in-lee-strobels-the-case-for-christ/
https://valerietarico.com/2019/03/20/how-case-for-christ-author-lee-strobel-fabricated-his-best-selling-story-an-interview-with-religion-critic-david-fitzgerald/
For a first step into biblical study, I'm not sure I would only read Carrier's book. As I haven't read it fully, I can't really comment on it like /u/koine_lingua.
But if you want to get a broad spectrum, you can check out:
John Meier Marginal Jew - (maybe vol. 2 or 3)
NT Wright's How God Became King
John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
Marcus Borg Jesus: An uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary
Craig Blomberg Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
You can take a stab at Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus
or Raymond E. Brown's Death of the Messiah or Birth of the Messiah if you want. I found Schweitzer's book difficult to get through. And one Easter holiday my plans were to read Death of the Messiah. After page like 17, I quit and played WoW.
That will give you a healthy dose of different perspectives - and will not only give you a survey of the scholarship but also will argue for a model, as opposed to Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus which just criticizes one aspect of HJ studies.
We do, however, have to be critical of the type of witness Scripture gives us. The high Christological formulas we find in the gospels are the result of some development over the first decades after Christ's death. I say this to simply point out that statements like Thomas' shouldn't be misunderstood as implying the historical 12 disciples saw Jesus as 'homoousios' with the Father. The development of Christological and Trinitarian doctrines is a fascinating question that needs to take the historically mediated nature of revelation into account. The book I cited above is a great intro. Also, this book and this book are wonderful texts for further examination.
Or this one: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452531252&sr=8-1&keywords=the+case+against+the+case+for+christ
I was raised Christian and the majority of my family is Christian. However, I am no longer "Christian" in any sense of what that label means. Without getting into my more universal view of religion, I still find it necessary to speak to my Christian relatives on their level. In other words, quoting Jesus. Whether you're Christian or not, the Jesus story (many variations of which have been found throughout various mythologies) is largely adaptable and entirely relevant no matter who you are or what religion you prefer. And you don't have to be Christian to live by it or quote it. In fact, Christians seem to be entirely missing the point of Jesus' message. If he lived, and were he to come back today, I believe that Christianity is one of the religions that he'd eradicate - just like the organized religions of his day.
I really don't know where you're at spiritually, but if any of this is of interest to you, take a look at a book like this (written by a teacher with a background in Zen):
Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic https://www.amazon.com/dp/162203094X/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_XjZYub1ZRVF1C
> If Jesus didn't die because of God's wrath, why did he die in the first place?
Atonement theories (Scroll down to Joshua Hopping's review for a brief overview)
Chritstus victor
> Your statement ignores God's holiness. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin.
I believe that God is holy, but the view that he is alergic to sin contradicts his omnipotence. The view that God cannot be in the presence of sin comes from a biblical narrative that I don't subscribe to and I believe to be self-contradictory.
> Well because of original sin, we now have a world that is no longer perfect.
Yes, the evangelical view is that people suffer because of Adam's original sin. The problem with this view is that it is not just for children to die as a consequence of someone else's sin. You do believe God is just don't you? Also, genetics has pretty much settled the question of whether we all came from a single human couple. We didn't.
I firmly believe that God is merciful, I just believe that that mercy will be realised in its fullness in the next life.
I am not claiming that the isolation and circumscribing of the ego out of the tribal happened solely because of or only with/through Yahweh.
It is more likely that this was simply a Trans-local phenomenon peculiar to the axial age.
The ego may be the "gift" of the axial age, perhaps the big takeaway.
Buddhism identifies and deals with the "I"while Judaism/abrahamicism (is that a word? I hope so) shall we say "employs" it.
I am sure this axial event can be found in other cultures before or after this example, I'm just wondering if this seemingly correlative idea has been explored in Judaism specifically.
Ultimately it is nothing more than the knower and the known seeing each other most clearly.
Who knows, Moses may have actually been a "true bicameral" schizophrenic who really "heard" or even "saw" God and was simply reporting his findings to his peeps. If Jesus the magician would have been around he would have likely "exorcised" the daemon Yahweh out of Moses. Perhaps this is what Jesus was trying to do all along?
Jesus contra Yahweh?
Since you know about Richard Carrier I would assume you already have read some of the well known Anti-religionists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Stenger, etc. If you are talking about secular biblical scholarship and historical analysis there isn't anyone who keeps me interested as much as Carrier, but I haven't read much in that subject. Some others include Robert Price and Bart Erhman.
There are several good essay compilations by John Loftus which are more generally directed at Christianity. They include essays by Carrier and Robert Price and a number of other secular thinkers. The Christian Delusion I think is the first in that series. Hitchens's The Portable Atheist is another good collection which includes older writing aimed at all religion. Bertrand Russell is a great, too.
If you specifically want books that will make you take Jesus seriously, I'd suggest the following to start with:
Jesus and Empire by Richard Horsley
God and Empire by John Dominic Crossan (BONUS: he's Catholic)
The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann
These are all short books, in the low 100s page count, and the authors have an easily accessible style. If you get through those, read more historical Jesus stuff by these guys. I also highly recommend Marcus Borg and Doug Oakman.
Once you've got the historical Jesus stuff down, you can move on to theology! If you want to read liberation theology, go with the original. Political theology is good, too - Moltmann's Theology of Hope and The Crucified God are must-reads. As for economic theology, I'd start with M. Douglas Meeks' God the Economist and Jeorg Rieger's No Rising Tide.
If you get through all that and find it interesting, I can recommend dozens of other books.
There is an interesting [critique] (https://www.amazon.com/Ehrman-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1578840198) of Dr. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist that is very powerful. The critique pretty well demolishes the thin arguments Ehrman offers for historicity claims for Jesus.
> She's asked me to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I told her I would.
Be sure to follow it up with "The Case Against the Case for Christ".
I can suggest two books that might be what you are looking for.
Lee Strobel's Case for Christ investigates the Jesus claims from an "impartial" viewpoint (ie he only interviews apologetic sources). He uses as proof, for example, that the gospel writers are eye-witnesses which, if you are reading Ehrman, you know to be bunk. (Amazon actually has quite a long 'look inside' preview for this book)
Robert Price refutes Strobel's claims in "The Case Against the Case for Christ". I haven't read the book myself, but considering Price is one who denies much of the historicity of Jesus, I'm guessing he didn't pull any punches.
Jesus offers many teaching that people consider to be very beautiful including atheists. Thomas Jefferson believed his teaching to be the most moral ever taught and created the Jefferson Bible which took out all mention of miracles and just left in the wisdom. Jesus got rid of the notion that one race is superior to another, that it is the transformation of the heart that matters not blind obedience to rituals (The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath....it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him but what comes out of it, etc...), and emphasized that spiritual wealth is the most valuable wealth that one can accumulate. Judaism and Islam have food laws, rituals and Judaism believes in a Superior Race. Hindus also have food laws, and believe in three levels of the Superior Race with the fourth level there to serve the first three (the "twice born.").
This is what Jesus can offer that other religions dont. The catch is two fold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Sayings-Seastone/dp/1569751692
Well I hope that you continue to read it. I doubt that your comprehension at such a young age would do it much justice. I would also suggest that you look to other books that speak on the bible from a scholarly or educated perspective.
My favorite interpretation and analysis of any part of the bible is actually one done from a non-Christian eastern perspective.
The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda
This book is an analysis of The Sermon on The Mount and its very strong similarities to core fundamentals of ancient Vedic teachings. It pointed out to me in a new way the divine truth of Jesus's teachings and strengthened my faith to a whole new level.
If you would like...I would love to buy this book for you.
Honestly, that's a truly awful book. Even by apologetics standards. Here is a good book that takes Strobel's points chapter by chapter. Strobel, like most apologists, is speaking to an audience of believers, attempting to give them some reason to think their faith is rational.
BTW, have an upvote to cancel out the person who downvoted. I might not agree with you, but it seems you posted that in good faith.
I suppose you could start here:
Q. 58. How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured?
A. We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured, by the application of them unto us,[249] which is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost.[250]
Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it;[251] who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.[252]
For more on this, you could see John Murray's first section "Redemption Accomplished and Applied" which he speaks about the atonement.
The Christological Controversy, an anthology of both orthodox and heretical primary sources. (There is another volume on The Trinitarian Controversy.)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/case-for-case-against-case-for-christ.html
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058
You could try this book that is refuting this book. Although I haven't read either.
Pfft. Lighting a small fire and asking the spirits or gods for help is probably humanity's oldest spiritual act - whether its Freya or the Virgin Mary you're asking it makes no difference. How many churches have racks of votive candles for this very purpose? And there's a huge body of knowledge involving using the Bible for hoodoo-like spells and charms anyway. Tell 'em to go piss up a rope. :-P
You might appreciate the book 'Jesus the Magician' by Morton Smith if you haven't read it already.
Pope Benedict wrote a series of books on Jesus and they are excellent:
The Covenant of Redemption was a covenant of love involving our Triune God.
Here’s a book recommendation for you and your pastor
https://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Accomplished-Applied-John-Murray/dp/080287309X/ref=nodl_
The problem with pain and evil is that we don't really know.
I firmly believe that the Creator didn't intend for any of this, yet that unhinges a whole bunch of presuppositions about what the Creator is like; such as immutability, impassibility, even omniscience.
For me the root question was "If GOD knew the outcome of creation before creation, doesn't that make GOD ultimately responsible?"
There are no definitive answers for theodicy. There are guesses and suggestions, frameworks and world views.
Our conception of GOD; that primary view of GOD's attributes will influence so much of how we understand suffering and pain.
The best framework for me is Open Theism.
Here are some awesome resources for what has proved so vital for my faith regarding pain and suffering:
1)The Crucified GOD - Jurgen Moltmann - an awesome book (if not a little on the academic end) thinking through Jesus and suffering.
2) Is GOD to Blame? - Greg Boyd - a much easier to read book exploring these very questions.
3)The Openness of GOD - Pinnock et. al. - for me this is the gold standard. It isn't too dry and heady but isn't weak on research either.
Awesome question and I love that quote from your brother.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1408844796?pc_redir=1404798434&robot_redir=1
And it includes son inside pics :)
slightly related but not from Buddhist pov. Anyway, I really enjoyed it:
http://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Mount-According-Vedanta-Prabhavananda-ebook/dp/B0031ER4VA/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1404657587&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=vedanta+jesuschrist
Awesome stuff. Thanks for sharing all of this. It always brightens my day to see folks connecting the dots in different traditions. I've actually been listening to Adyashanti's Resurrecting Jesus in the car lately, and although Adyashanti grates my nerves occasionally (for whatever reason, my issue, not his ;)), it's been fascinating to hear his take on the Jesus story. I also loved Thay's Living Buddha, Living Christ. I started my practice as a "secular pragmatist," but eventually realized how limiting that label was. Nowadays, I can get down with Jesus, God, the Holy Ghost, and any other relatively useful / powerful / touching / sacred (yet ultimately empty) phenomena / conceptualization that points me back to JUST THIS. :)
What you're describing is Calvinism, basically, and I completely reject it. Do you not believe in free will? If everything was already pre-planned, what would be the point of anything.
I am an open-theist. Basically, I believe that God's mind can be changed (there are plenty of scriptural references to this happening). Greg Boyd, who wrote the book, the God Of The Possible describes open theism as this:
>If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities. (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).
>To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings). To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities. While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices. This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians, for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.
I would also recommend James Dunn's Jesus Remembered. Its a rigorous if confessional source that does a marvelous job of placing Jesus and the gospel texts in historical context.
No great insights for you, unfortunately, but coincidentally I just got to this part in Pope Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth (part 1)". Benedict says that Jesus is using the imagery of the time-period for the afterlife, which we should not try to connect too literally to accurate theology.
Benedict points out that The Rich Man is in "Hades," not "Gehenna;" both characters are in sort of "waiting areas" for the Resurrection of the body, which was the basic idea of the era.
If you were actually interested in an answer to this question, this is a great book on the topic: "Saved from Sacrifice" http://www.amazon.com/Saved-Sacrifice-Theology-Mark-Heim/dp/0802832156.
From a review: "[He presents the Crucifixion as the ultimate result of the human scapegoating tendency and how Jesus, by his resurrection, broke the cycle of violence and sacrifice and gave mankind a model of forgiveness available to perpetrators and victims alike." It's actually pretty fascinating to learn about the actual context of Christ's sacrifice and how completely different a thing it is in the lens of the era Christ lived in, and in general how revolutionary his teachings were.
This is actually an argument against a specific book's claims... but it'll cover most everything you're likely to see... and it's a lot more readable than similar books.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
while we are at it
Silouan, have you checked out Saved from Sacrifice? I just picked it up and haven't had a chance to go through it yet, but I hear good things. Anyway, from what I can tell, it does a lot of exploration into what you are bringing up here.
I think The Case Against the Case for Christ might be a good one :)
In response to your first point, I highly recommend reading this, it addresses God's possible interactions with other people in the past. There are other books that address this from the perspective of individual cultures as well
In response to your third point. Why does omniscience contradict freewill? Why would the knowledge that someone else has about you, in any way preclude you from freedom of choice?
If I offer a dog bologna in one hand and a rock in the other, I both know what he will choose, and he is still free to choose between the two. Why would they principle not hold true when extended to men and gods?
In response to your fourth point. If God did not create Adam and Eve because of the sin that he knew they would commit, he would be effectively punishing them with death/nonexistence for something they hadn't even done (yet). They freely chose to have children in a world where they understood contained suffering (the same thing that yours and my parents did), why is God responsible for their decisions?
Instead of finding that video why not read The Case Against the Case for Christ?
Lol that's him, although that's a very unflattering introduction to him. He's not good in debate, but his Bible Geek podcast is really interesting even if you disagree with him. As far as NT minimalists go, he's who most people on the sub (myself included) would recommend.
Unlike Carrier and friends, he isn't dogmatic and doesn't overstate his case, The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems is a good example.
Also now that I think about it, he did actually translate the NT and other works used by the early church in the Pre-Nicene New Testament, tho I think you might have to get it from us site. He considers himself a cultural Christian, so he's definitely not opposed to Christianity, but he isn't beholden to any particular theology or any of the mythicist theories, so it might be worth checking out. I'm afraid I haven't read it myself though, all I could afford was a free download of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, though I do recommend it — the parallels between the Gospels and other Greco-Roman literature are really interesting.
It seems as though your only source, that isn't the bible, is Bart Ehrman. In fact, almost everything that you've written on the subject is almost verbatim Ehrman's own phrasing, especially this little gem which Ehrman has never provided any evidence for:
> Each and every one of these scholars with a teaching position at a university not only believes that Jesus existed...
So, either you are Ehrman or you've read a single book that validates your viewpoints and have begun a crusade on r/atheism.
I will see your one, single source, and raise you 2 additional doctorates in the field that disagree directly with Ehrman:
On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier, PhD Ancient History
The Messiah Myth by Thomas Thompson, PhD Theology who also was a professor of religious studies at a few universities despite the incessant assertions of both yourself and Ehrman that every single scholar in a teaching position believes the same as you.
The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert Price, PhD Systematic Theology and PhD New Testament yet another professor of religion at a university.
>The intenionally misleading term "historical Jesus" is meant to confuse who we really have evidence for. We have everyone for the person(s) Jesus is based on (whose key properties are entirely natural), but no evidence for Jesus (whose key properties are entirely supernatural).
Since you repeatedly show that you have never even bothered to so much as Google the scholarship on this issue I'm just going to give it to you.
The wikipedia page on the subject with hosts of links and quotes from historians, and textual critics:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Bart Ehrman Answering a question about this at talk:
https://youtu.be/43mDuIN5-ww
His book on the subject:
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062206443/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Hrf6CbNSB68PT
Albert Schweitzer's book on the subject:
The Quest of the Historical Jesus https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486440273/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_gtf6CbY07Q6Y0
It's also one of r/Askhistorians most frequently asked questions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a2z3a7/i_always_hear_people_say_we_know_for_sure_that/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/how_much_evidence_is_there_for_a_historical_jesus/chf3t4j/?context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8mm717/what_is_the_historical_jesus/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tjeq1/from_a_historical_perspective_what_is_the_actual/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sxsko/evidence_for_jesus/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rubhc/so_what_do_we_actually_know_about_the_life/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3uubcm/how_certain_are_historians_the_jesus_christ_was_a/
Like this?
especially since another person already did that: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058
And the person who did that was another Christian, no less.
The Case for Christ? Book of apologetics written by Lee Strobel? Yeah, no. That tome has been refuted six ways from Sunday.
But you've assumed that Q is the only way in which the gospels could have been written. The Two Source Hypothesis and Bauckham both challenge this (in different ways).
>How would their authors be primary witnesses if they relied on the same earlier source of supposed sayings, while being unable to agree on important "facts" surrounding the life of this hypothesized man?
Again, this only works if Q is objectively correct- you've got to prove that there is such an thing as a Q document (which so far doesn't exist, it's a hypothesis). As for their (apparent) disagreement: all the major events are agreed on, the differences are in some details and perspective (why you'd expect 4 people to have the same perspective on numerous events I'm not sure). They were not writing history in our modern sense, but they were giving historical accounts as far as they saw it, and hence picked out different details (Matthew being more interested in Jewish things than Luke for example). Also, I don't know anyone who honestly thinks that Jesus didn't exist. They might disagree with what the sources say he did, but they don't abnegate his existence.
>Really, some thirty years in the ancient world could correlate with an entire lifetime. Why didn't these gospel writers feel it was important to write anything down for such a long period of time, then all of a sudden you have three likely to have been written in the same decade, nearly thirty years later?
Well, assume they're all roughly Jesus' age at the time of the crucifixion, that means they've got until 90AD to sort things out (at the top end). As it is, the first deaths (these are the traditional dates) start in 44AD and finish roughly around mid 70AD, which is within the spectrum of lifespans for the time period. Now you're running out of eyewitnesses - you've got to start writing things down or else you've lost your link with what happened. A 30 year gap isn't a huge amount of time (Muhammad's first book comes out 125 years after he's dead, the great Jewish Rabbi Hillel's work comes out about 200 years after he dies). You've also got a chirographic bias - oral/aural tradition is incredibly important during that time, more than the written one (cf: James Dunn).
>Why would they then neglect to save a record of the Q Source?? The whole thing reeks.
The argument is that Q is actually incorporated into the gospel accounts. Q is only theorized.
Just so you know, there's this book: The Case Against the Case For Christ.
If you don't want to read it alone, try listening to Steve Shrives' take on it as you go.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70
Send him a copy of the "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price. http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058
I think this is a more fair comparison: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058
I'm struggling with how to respond to your post. I'm not sure there's much to be said here, because we're kind of talking past each other. You don't really seem to have grasped what I'm explaining, and I suspect that's because you're assuming a number of things about my beliefs and perspectives. I'm happy to continue this conversation if we can get passed that, but I'm not sure I can continue with such a broad scope.
However, I feel like we should deal with this little bit:
>I think the best suggestion I can make to you is to step back, look at the shape of your beliefs - what you seek to include, what you seek to exclude - and see if a spot of introspection can illuminate the what/why of your belief structure and worldview. You are already remaking a religion in your own image, it pays to understand the basis of that image.
A few things I think we should clarify:
First, you should know that I'm a pastor. I've got an M.Div, with three years of graduate study of the Bible, Church History and Theology. I've studied scripture in the original languages. I preach every Sunday. I've sat in hospital rooms and listened and cried and prayed with people struggling with the hardest questions of their lives: questions about who they are, what their purpose is, how they make sense of their lives, many of them as they lay dying. All that to say, I've done--- and continue to do--- plenty of "stepping back to look at the shape of my beliefs." Far more than you can imagine. But thanks for the concern. You are right to say it's important to ask those questions of ourselves. ;)
Second, you should understand that what I'm expressing to you isn't something I simply came up with. What I'm sharing with you is very basic Christian theology you'd be taught in many a mainline seminary or divinity school. This isn't me "remaking religion in my own image." I wish it were that easy.
To show you what I mean, I'm going to suggest some reading for you, so that you might better understand what I'm talking about here.
I'd start with Biblical Theology: A proposal by the late Brevard Childs (not that it matters, but he taught at Yale). It's a tiny book, but it'll give you a very accurate overview of how the Christian canon came to be, and why it came to be, and why that question matters to Biblical exegesis and authority.
Also, if you're really interested in understanding the foundations of Christianity (and have some time on your hands), check out The Crucified God by Jurgen Moltmann. This book touches on a lot of issues, but one of them is how the crucifixion and resurrection are so foundational to the Christian faith.
I'm happy to give it one more shot, and try to explain with more clarity a canonical-critical approach to scripture to you if you're sincerely interested.
Your post was painful to read.
Painful because I used to be an arrogant, know-it-all Bible apologist like your friend, and it's embarrassing to remember; and painful because I've since had debates with people like me/your friend after learning the truth, and these debates always go in circles and are so unbelievably fruitless and frustrating.
Listen--you cannot change your friend's mind with facts or logic. You can't change anyone's mind with debate; people have to want to learn and be willing to challenge their own assumptions. If this guy is truly your friend, and you want to be able to hang out with him, it would be far better to just say "I don't want to argue about it" whenever he wants to debate, and just go back to doing friend-stuff.
That said, if you are genuinely curious about his claims, there are plenty of resources out there. It's kinda funny, but biblical literalists don't have "facts", they have talking points, and they all use the exact same ones, over and over. Talk origins is the greatest single repository of every fundamentalist claim I've ever seen, and it includes sources for each claim and rebuttal. It's quite impressive.
I've read The Case for Christ, and it's not that good. It's an exercise in logical fallacies. But if you do read it and find yourself scratching your head at some of the claims, Robert M Price wrote A Case Against the Case for Christ and picks it apart with ease. (Price's other books are pretty informative, too, if you're curious about biblical history without the apologist bias.)
I hope this helps; just remember, these links and facts are only going to make your friend dig his heels in deeper. If you want to maintain any kind of friendship with him, I highly recommend changing the subject and agreeing to disagree.
He's trying to point you to the reviews of the book to get a gist of what is contained.
I would recommend looking into open theism.
http://opentheism.info/
Here's an article from the site:
The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism
http://opentheism.info/information/problem-evil-process-theism-classical-free-will-theism/
To add to it, I would recommend these books.
The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence by John Sanders
The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?
God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God
Others here have recommended other Christian approaches to the issue too. Seek the truth. God honors that.
Maybe this one https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/162203094X/ref=acr_dpx_see_all?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&showViewpoints=1 :)
Strobel's a joke. I read The Case For Christ when I was in a phase of desperately trying to keep my faith. Every point he brought up was terribly disappointing and when the people he interviewed brought some reason for believing, his challenges (if challenged them at all) were mediocre. He was never a staunch atheist as he claims. At most, he was probably someone indifferent to Christianity looking for a reason to believe.
I recently read Price's The Case Against The Case For Christ and it was hilarious and fun to read. I recommend it.
There is also a book that refutes a case for Christ.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
"Contemporary sources" meaning people of the time period.
A modern-day theologian who bases his work off of other peoples testimony is not as valuable in the historical sense as a historian of the time period recording as close to first-hand testimony as we've gotten.
To me at least.
It was nice chatting with you. Have a nice day.
PS: [The Case Against The Case For Christ.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/175-9664009-9240945)
I'm hunting up a torrent of both books right now…
Yep..I read it years ago and found it quite full of holes. He basically presents only the apologist side of the case, completely ignoring major lines of evidence and the substantive arguments against Christian claims.
If you are interested in getting a broader perspective on his arguments, I recommend you read some of the responses to his book. Here is a pretty thorough review of the book from a skeptical perspective.
and there an entire book-length refutation here.
Remember, the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny. Try reading both sides with an open mind and see if his case stands up.
Congratulations on doing your part to make atheists look ignorant. The vast majority of reputable historical scholars believe the gospel Jesus was based on a real person:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578840198
You're allowed to have your own opinion but not your own facts.