Reddit mentions: The best christian church history books

Early church fathers from the year 150 aren't really relevant, since by that time plenty of people did think jesus was god. That might seem close to the time of christ, but for an unorganized early religion, a century is a long time.

As far as those quotes, you took them directly from a propaganda site that is trying to convince you of something. Most aren't real historical evidence that he was seen as god. I'll skip the john verses since the book of john was written later after theological changes, but the others in order:

>“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).

Nothing about this says he is god. The idea that someone represents someone's presence is a common religious trope.

>28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.[b]

This is misleading when taken out of context, since in the verses before this he was talking about jesus. So "he" here just refers to jesus again. It only looks like "he" means god when taken out of context.

>Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

You run into an error here when reading translations by people who are reading their theology into it. Remember that in the original language this would have been more ambiguous punctuation-wiise. The original language says ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. And here, the final part can be read as "god who is over all be praised." It only looks like jesus is being called god if you assume that it is one continuous line.

>24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

This says that christ embodies the power of god. But that is not a statement that he is god. Again, a figure embodying the properties or authority of another is a common trope in religion. Especially via greek influence.

>4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

This ties to the above. You should be starting to see a pattern now. Saying that someone represents the authority of god doesn't mean they are god themself. You should notice something else here. None of these verses are saying he literally -is- god. They all say he indirectly represents or embodies the nature of god. So you can actually start to see what happened just from this. The earliest written texts don't say he is god. But they ascribe him special importance of representing god's natures manifested to humanity. Over time, later people were clearly worshiping jesus, and the original meaning was obscured so the idea that he was literally god was seen as necessary to preserve the claim of monotheism.

>who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

And this verse is very damning. Because it clearly ascribes him an embodiment of god's properties, yet also makes it clear that he is not equal to god, nor did he say he was. Note that your later view that it would be odd for it to word things this way or conflate god and man can't be read into a text that was radical for the time, and before those theologies even existed.

>15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

This one is even more damning because it explicitly calls jesus a created being. "creation" might be ambiguous to later readers, but it clearly delineates created things. And this shows how many of these early christians saw him. Many thought that he was a unique created being who is second only to god, and kind of divine in his own right. But even here there is no implication of him being equal to god. Only that he is a medium through which god's powers manifest.

>13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ

This is another one people twist based on punctuation. If you are reading it in a language without punctuation you can think it is delineating god and jesus as one, when in actuality it is listing two beings.

>3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Note here the son and god are being delineated as two different things.

>Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God, and our Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Again, punctuation ambiguity. If you list two names together like this you can read it as if it is two names for one being.

But again notice something here. 1: none of these verses clearly and unambiguously say jesus is god. 2: There is no indication of any new radical understanding of god as a multi-person thing. 3: jesus is presented as a bridge between man and god. Why would he need to be represented in this way if he was god himself? 4: the book of john is the first beginnings of him seemingly conflated with the father, but even there he is not presented as equal. The book of john was also written after these other texts. The early ones take great pains to try to say he was the messiah. Why then do none of them come out and say he is god? Indirect things you can vaguely interpret as saying that don't really count, since they wouldn't have presumed the audience knew who jesus was. So they would need to be clear.

Only in the gospel of john is Jesus depicted as God. In the other gospels, and the writings of paul he is not. And this isn't something that slipped their minds either. They didn't say so because they didn't think so, and him being so wasn't the content of christianity at the time.

Note that even in john, there is no trinitarianism. Jesus is considered a lesser sub aspect of god, who is kind of god, but not the fullness of god.

http://biblehub.com/john/14-28.htm

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A28&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A32&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+5%3A8&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-17&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+8%3A6&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1%3A15&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A14&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A17&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17%3A3&version=ESV

Note that at different times jesus says the father is superior. Disavows omniscience. Says that he is capable of learning. Is called the first creation. Says he is not all good like the father. Calls the father his own god, specifying a lower position, and disavowing full godhood, etc. To the majority of biblical writers Jesus is not god at all. In john he is depicted as kind of god in an emanationist way. He is not the godhead, but an intermediary lesser part of god in between god and humanity.

But here's a book:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184

This is really not controversial among historians at all. There is no evidence that any christians saw jesus as literally the same being as the father for quite a lot of decades after his death. Trinitarianism as an idea only shows up around 120 ad, and the first writings on it very definitely were proto versions of the later idea.

> How did you come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

The person making a positive claim assumes the burden of proof. Your Christian friend rejected the null hypothesis that {supernatural deities exist} and accepted the alternate hypothesis that {supernatural deities exists}. What evidence is there to support/justification of the null hypothesis and accept the alternate?

Ask your friend to please present the reasons they believe in the God Horus. If you have evidence to support Horus as your God, evidence that is verifiable and falsifiable, or a philosophical argument that can actually be shown to be linked to a natural physicalistic causality-limited universe, evidence that is not an emotional or feeling based subjective experience based upon confirmation bias from prior knowledge of what your "God" image may be, please feel free to present it.

How is that justification for belief in Horus coming along?

I don't think the Christian believes in Horus. And this is the basis for the atheism worldview.

It's not so much the evidence that one can provide (unless you will accept the 'lack of evidence' as evidence) for atheism. Rather it is such an overwhelming lack of any credible evidence that one can identify, or is put forth by others, to support a belief in supernatural deities. One cannot justify rejection of the null hypothesis that {supernatural deities do not exist} and accept/justify/support the alternative hypothesis that {supernatural deities do exist}.

It is possible to argue that this same position can be used for a theist to justify their belief structure over other differing theistic positions, as many theists claim that they believe based upon a feeling or emotion and/or have Religious Faith (i.e., religious belief without evidence) that supernatural deities are real and that their religious belief in supernatural deities is correct.

However, this position of Religious Faith for their own religious worldview is often the same reason they do not subscribe or believe in many other theistic worldviews - there is no evidence to support belief in the supernatural deities of other religious worldviews; they do not have Faith in other supernatural deities. For example, do adherents to any of the following example supernatural deity triads accept or propose belief in the existence of the other triads listed to which they do not have Religious Faith (or belief without evidence)?

• Egyptian: Osiris, Isis, Horus<br />

• Canaanite – Early Israelite: El the Father God, Asherah the Wife/Consort (depicted as a Serpent), Baal-Hadad
  
• Hindu Trimurti: Brahma - the Creator, Vishnu - the Maintainer, Shiva - the Destroyer
  
• Olympian Greek Religion: Zeus, Athena, Apollo
  
• Roman Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
  
• Sumerian: Anu, Ea, Enlil
  
• Babylonian: Shamash, Ishtar, Tammuz
  
• Christianity: Yahweh, Holy Spirit, Jesus
  
  Related statement concerning the belief in "God": We are all functionally atheists, there just is no evidence to justify support of one, or more, (depending on mono- vs. poly-theistic beliefs) supernatural deity(ies) than a Christian, a theist does.
  
  > Return and repent before its too late. Death may be around the corner...
  
  Pascal's Wager? But let's take that self-serving piece of shit statement at face value - What is the purpose of an infinite eternity in Heaven?
  
  Why? Or better, why strive for Heaven?
  
  What is Heaven? According to Christianity, heaven is the purpose of all things. Heaven is the reason we live. Heaven is the reason Christ came and the reason he died for our sins. Heaven is the motivator of all of the apostles. Nothing is more important than heaven. Family, love, money, all of these things come second to heaven. [Source]
  
  Then;
  
  What is the purpose of Heaven? Heaven is life in its perfected state. We, as creatures of God, are not designed to live in an imperfect world. We are designed to live in a world free from the corruption of sin. We are designed to live in the presence of God where we are free to worship, socialize, and discuss. This life is only a temporary existence. Heaven is where we can exist forever. The day heaven’s gates are opened is the day we begin our lives, not here on earth. The purpose of heaven is to provide a place for us to live. [Source]
  
  Then;
  
  What is the purpose of living for eternity in a perfected state with God? In a perfected state with God to provide all it would be Eternally Perfect (and ultimately, Undifferentiated) Bliss, all there is to be known would become known; eternal life in Heaven would quickly become static, unchanging, unremarkable and boring spent in worship of God. Eternal life is ultimately pointless and without merit.
  
  The real question is: Ultimately, what is the difference between heaven and hell?
  
  Nothing. Against an infinite eternity, Heaven and Hell are interchangeable.
  
  ----
  
  Here are some suggestions for Christian debate topics:
  
  
• The actions attributed to God in the bible are all of a positive morality
  
• Yahweh is and always been the one and only true God
  
• The purpose of an infinite eternity in heaven and why that purpose is good for those in heaven
  
• Evidence to support the mind-body dualism of a soul
  
• Evidence to support that the Christian God is the creator of the universe and still intervenes within the universe in a meaningful way
  
• Present a coherent definition of God and show how free will is possible (or impossible) under that construct
  
• Evidence to support the resurrection of Christ that is non-Biblical
  
• Why has prayer never resulted in the healing of an amputee to include at least one healed and fully finctional bone joint?
  
• How the conclusion of the parable of the Ten Minas concludes with a positive morality:
  
  Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.
  
  
• Genesis 3 (if you are a Genesis literalist) - Justify Christian morality against the Serpent (or Adversary) giving humankind morality (knowledge of good and evil) when God/Yahweh had decreed that humankind was not to have morality (forbid humans to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil).
  
• Why the divine or inspired word of God and Christ and the Spirit was so directed and appropriate for a small low-population tribe of desert dwellers with it's late bronze age/early iron age society applies to today's society.
  
• Why the overwhelming majority of Christians, in the one true religion for the one true and only God, seem to be only located in geo-political-socio-groups that they were born, and indoctrinated, into rather than distributed throughout other regions where other religions are prominent.
  
• Does God have free will?
  
• Why worship a God, Yahweh/YHWH, as the one true and only mono-theistic God when all historical documentation shows that Yahweh did not start out as anything more than a subordinate desert rain/fertility/warrior god to the Canaanite/Ugarit people that would later become known as Israelites (and hence to Jews and from there Christians and Muslims). During the period that Genesis and Exodus (1450-1410 BCE'ish) were (supposedly) being written, represented a time when the religion of the region was still in convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism) of the polytheistic triad of the most prominent Canaanite and Ugarit Gods: El (the father God), Asherah (goddess, wife or companion to El), and Baal (storm/rain God, son of El) [though there is reference in Ugarit documents to Yahweh also being one of the sons of El] to the monolatry of the storm/rain God Yahweh and from there to monotheistic worship where Yahweh took the supreme position. References to Gods that predate, and are contemporary to, Yahweh can be found throughout the old testament.
  
  More online references with discussion the origin of the monotheistic God of Israel:
  
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel
  
• The Origins and Gradual Adoption of Monotheism Amongst the Ancient Israelites
  
• The evolution of God
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
  Other:
  
  
• The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith
  
• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  

First of all, welcome back, brother. I am especially touched that your fiancée would even suggest to find a Catholic Church. (As an aside, you're not a convert; you're a revert since you're already baptized into the Church. I thought maybe you'd appreciate that factoid.)

​

>I am looking for information about your Church, whatever you think is important to know.

There is a lot to know and many here would recommend a million and one things to study, especially since it sounds like you enjoy a good intellectual pursuit. I'm not going to discount others' recommendations, but I do want to highlight one thing: learn more about Jesus first. Find out what He taught, who He is, what His disciples and closest friends said about Him, what the Old Testament said about Him, etc. To that end...

​

>I am looking for recommendations for a Catholic-approved version of the Bible, geared towards someone who appreciates philosophy and prefers something close to the original translations, or the most accepted by the Church.

First thing to note, all Catholic Bibles have 72 books. Protestants have 66. If you can't get a hold of a Catholic Bible, a Protestant one will do for now until you do get around to buying a Catholic one. Now, as for Catholic Bibles, if you speak/read Latin you can't go wrong with the Vulgate Bible. It's a Bible that was translated by St. Jerome who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; he had the original manuscripts -- some of which are lost to us today -- so his translations are widely accepted as authentic and faithful.

There's also the English version of the Vulgate Bible known as the Douay-Rheims. It's an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin so the English will sound archaic to our modern ears. It's not as frustrating as, say, reading Shakespeare but it's pretty close. I personally prefer (and currently use) a Douay-Rheims Bible that has the Clementina Vulgata beside it. It's essentially Latin and English side by side. You can find one here.

If want one with plain English, the New American Bible Revised Edition would suffice. (If you use this website, let me know. I have a discount code from my last purchase.)

​

>I know nothing of the culture or norms of the Church, or what to expect as a new member.

One major rule to remember is that you can't receive Holy Communion until after you've gone to Confession. Given your situation, I would recommend setting up an appointment with a parish priest so he can give his full attention to you and your needs.

​

>I do not know how to introduce myself to the congregation

There's usually no need to introduce yourself to the congregation since parishes tend to be big. If you would like to formally introduce yourself, however, give the parish priest a call and set up a meeting with him. It would also be a great chance to speak with him about your situation and get some pastoral guidance.

​

>or tell a good Catholic church from a lesser one

Many here would recommend a more traditional parish. If that's not available, I'd say any Catholic church would do. If you're unsure about a particular church's standing, just give us the details on this sub. I'm sure someone here would be able to double check for you.

​

>I know nothing of the Saints or the miracles, or what has been confirmed by the Church and what hasn't.

These are things you can learn later on. Focus on Jesus first. Rebuild your relationship with Him. Start with the basics; if you don't, you might burn yourself out. There is A LOT to learn about the Faith. Some say it's a lifelong endeavour. :P

​

>I am also looking for a reading list to explore Catholic philosophy beyond those you typically encounter in standard philosophical reading, such as Aquinas or Pascal.

Hmmm... this depends on what sorts of things interest you. A good one that lightly touches on philosophy is Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft (anything by this guy is pretty good, by the way).

A book that may be more pressing to your current situation is Why Be Catholic? by Patrick Madrid and Abraham Skorka, Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn, as well as Why I am a Catholic by Brandon Vogt. (They might need to work on a more original title, though :P) Since you have an Evangelical background, Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray might be helpful (although it can be a bit dry; also, it mostly deals with the Church's teaching on Baptism and the Eucharist) as well as Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

You can never go wrong with classics such as a collection of C. S. Lewis' works, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton, and Confessions by St. Augustine.

If you want a historical examination of Jesus and the Early Church, a good place to start is The Case for Christ by Brant Pitre, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine by St. Eusebius, and The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I'd like to thrown in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David J. Hess. This last one pertains to the Catholic claim regarding the papacy (and which I think is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Catholic Church being the original one that the Lord founded).

Finally, there are YouTube channels you can follow/binge watch such as Bishop Robert Barron and Ascension Presents. Also, an amazing video about the Catholic Faith is a series made by Bishop Barron when he was "just" a priest called Catholicism.

I'm sorry if that's overwhelming but you raised some good questions. :P Anyway, I imagine it may be a lot right now so take it slowly, don't dive in through all of it at once. Find a local Catholic church, call up the priest, set up a meeting, then take it from there. And remember, you can always pray; God's always willing to talk with you.

Here's a list of books I've read that have had a big impact on my journey.

First and foremost tho, you should learn to meditate. That's the most instrumental part of any spiritual path.

 Ram Dass – “Be Here Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Here-Now-Ram-Dass/dp/0517543052 - Possibly the most important book in the list – was the biggest impact in my life.  Fuses Western and Eastern religions/ideas. Kinda whacky to read, but definitely #1

Ram Dass - “Journey Of Awakening” - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006L7R2EI - Another Ram Dass book - once I got more into Transcendental Meditation and wanted to learn other ways/types of meditation, this helped out.

 Clifford Pickover – “Sex, Drugs, Einstein & Elves…” - https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Drugs-Einstein-Elves-Transcendence/dp/1890572179/ - Somewhat random, frantic book – explores lots of ideas – planted a lot of seeds in my head that I followed up on in most of the books below

 Daniel Pinchbeck – “Breaking Open the Head” - https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Open-Head-Psychedelic-Contemporary/dp/0767907434 - First book I read to explore impact of psychedelics on our brains

 Jeremy Narby – “Cosmic Serpent” - https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Serpent-DNA-Origins-Knowledge/dp/0874779642/ - Got into this book from the above, explores Ayahuasca deeper and relevancy of serpent symbolism in our society and DNA

 Robert Forte – “Entheogens and the Future of Religion” - https://www.amazon.com/Entheogens-Future-Religion-Robert-Forte/dp/1594774382 - Collection of essays and speeches from scientists, religious leaders, etc., about the use of psychedelics (referred to as Entheogens) as the catalyst for religion/spirituality

 Clark Strand – “Waking up to the Dark” - https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Dark-Ancient-Sleepless/dp/0812997727 - Explores human’s addiction to artificial light, also gets into femininity of religion as balance to masculine ideas in our society

 Lee Bolman – “Leading with Soul” - https://www.amazon.com/Leading-Soul-Uncommon-Journey-Spirit/dp/0470619007 - Discusses using spirituality to foster a better, more supportive and creative workplace – pivotal in my honesty/openness approach when chatting about life with coworkers

 Eben Alexander – “Proof of Heaven” - https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195 - A neurophysicist discusses his near death experience and his transformation from non-believer to believer (title is a little click-baity, but very insightful book.  His descriptions of his experience align very similarly to deep meditations I’ve had)

 Indries Shah – “Thinkers of the East” - https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-East-Idries-Shah/dp/178479063X/ - A collection of parables and stories from Islamic scholars.  Got turned onto Islamic writings after my trip through Pakistan, this book is great for structure around our whole spiritual “journey”

 Whitley Strieber – “The Key: A True Encounter” - https://www.amazon.com/Key-True-Encounter-Whitley-Strieber/dp/1585428698 - A man’s recollection of a conversation with a spiritual creature visiting him in a hotel room.  Sort of out there, easy to dismiss, but the topics are pretty solid

 Mary Scott – “Kundalini in the Physical World” - https://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Physical-World-Mary-Scott/dp/0710094175/ - Very dense, very difficult scientific book exploring Hinduism and metaphysics (wouldn’t recommend this for light reading, definitely something you’d want to save for later in your “journey”)

 Hermann Hesse – “Siddartha” - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/siddhartha-hermann-hesse/1116718450? – Short novel about a spiritual journey, coming of age type book.  Beautifully written, very enjoyable.

Reza Aslan - “Zealot” - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X - Talks about the historical Jesus - helped me reconnect with Christianity in a way I didn’t have before

Reza Aslan - “No god but God” - https://www.amazon.com/god-but-God-Updated-Evolution/dp/0812982444 - Same as above, but in terms of Mohammad and Islam.  I’m starting to try to integrate the “truths” of our religions to try and form my own understanding

Thich Nhat Hanh - “Silence” - https://www.amazon.com/Silence-Power-Quiet-World-Noise-ebook/dp/B00MEIMCVG - Hanh’s a Vietnamese Buddhist monk - in this book he writes a lot about finding the beauty in silence, turning off the voice in our heads and lives, and living in peace.

Paulo Coelho - “The Alchemist” - https://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ - Sort of a modern day exploration of “the path” similar to “Siddhartha.”  Very easy and a joy to read, good concepts of what it means to be on a “path”

Carlos Castaneda - "The Teachings of Don Juan" - The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671600419 - Started exploring more into shamanism and indigenous spiritual work; this book was a great intro and written in an entertaining and accessible way. 

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Mary” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Mary-Magdalene-Jean-Yves-Leloup/dp/0892819111/ - The book that finally opened my eyes to the potentiality of the teachings of Christ.  This book, combined with the one below, have been truly transformative in my belief system and accepting humanity and the power of love beyond what I’ve found so far in my journey.

Jean-Yves Leloup - “The Gospel of Philip” - https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Philip-Magdalene-Gnosis-Sacred/dp/1594770220 - Really begins to dissect and dive into the metaphysical teachings of Christ, exploring the concept of marriage, human union and sexuality, and the power contained within.  This book, combined with the one above, have radically changed my perception of The Church as dissimilar and antithetical to what Christ actually taught.

Ram Dass - “Be Love Now” - https://www.amazon.com/Be-Love-Now-Path-Heart/dp/0061961388 - A follow-up to “Be Here Now” - gets more into the esoteric side of things, his relationship with his Guru, enlightenment, enlightened beings, etc.

Riane Eisler - “The Chalice and the Blade” - https://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 - An anthropoligical book analyzing the dominative vs cooperative models in the history and pre-history of society and how our roots have been co-opted and rewritten by the dominative model to entrap society into accepting a false truth of violence and dominance as “the way it is”

Hi there! Thanks for giving us a look!

The central "thing" about Catholicism is that we are the continuation of the Church that Christ founded on his Apostles/Peter. By looking at the history of Christianity, I think you'll find that statement is true (like I did).

I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never really looked into or practiced my faith that much. One day, I thought I'd have myself a go and try to disprove religion. Religion is just holding us back as a society right? So let me start at the top of the ladder. I tried to disprove theism in general.

Couldn't do it.

Ok, let me disprove Christianity then.

Couldn't do it.

Dang, can I at least prove that Catholicism isn't the true form of Christianity?

LOL, nope. I ended up having a much stronger connection to my faith. Presently, I am discerning the priesthood. I thank God every day that He allowed me to have such arrogance as to think "I can disprove God!" and travel down that rabbit hole. I came out with a profound love and trust for God. It was stressful and hair-pulling, but worth it!

I, for one, am a reader. Literature is what brought me back to the Church. There area many works which I would recommend:

• a small encyclical by Pope John Paul II called Fides et Ratio, or Faith and Reason in Latin. This very short book is about how faith and human reason are not opposed to each other! Faith and reason are two wings of the same dove on which man ascends to God. It's a very simple, yet important thing to read, and sets the stage for Catholic philosophy and theology.
  
  
• The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Jimmy converted to Catholicism after being a Baptist. This amazing book shows historical documents from the Early Church and shows how the Church Fathers, those who studied under the Apostles themselves, prove that Catholicism is the true form of Christianity.
  
  
• The Protestant's Dilemma is a fantastic read. It points to the inconsistencies in Protestantism and how such a religion cannot work. After I finished this book, I realized that every branch of Protestantism was false, and that the only true religion could be either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
  
  
• Jesus, Peter, and the Keys convinced me Catholicism was true and Orthodoxy was false because of its denial of the Papacy. I was hooked.
  
  
• In your situation, specifically with the attachment to Our Lady that you have, Behold Your Mother is a beautiful read. It's written by Tim Staples, another Catholic convert who converted his whole family to the Church. Tim explains why Catholics love Mary so much, and where all our fancy Mary doctrines come from. I think you would benefit greatly from this read!
  
  Finally, Catholic Answers has a YouTube channel. They have a 2 hour show every weekday in which they answer questions from Catholics and non-Catholics, and upload these questions as short videos. Any question you have should be answered here.
  
  There are many other books you could look into, but we don't want to scare you away! We have almost 2,000 years of material to read.

First off, Welcome! You are a special snowflake, and don't let anyone tell you different! Also, I love cream cheese brownies and wine. Something in common already :). Secondly, I'm a catechumen (officially in the process of joining the Church) so take anything I say with a grain of salt as I'm definitely still learning. Other more experience Ortho folks will chime in I'm sure.


Having already attended some services with the intention of continuing I'd say you've got the right idea. Others here, like myself, experienced Orthodoxy first in books. It can be easy to read and read while never going to see and experience for yourself. So, good on ya.


If you're interested in supplementing what you're learning in the services and conversations with the priest, there are lots of good books and web resources. A couple books I’d recommend would be “The Orthodox Way” by bishop Kallistos Ware and “The Orthodox Church” by the same author. The first book deals more with Orthodox spirituality and the second starts off with some history in the first half and teaching/doctrine in the second half. Search through this sub-forum and you’ll find a lot of great questions/answers and links to some great articles.


I’m also a big fan of this blog by Fr. Stephen Freeman.
Feel free to ask any questions you have, there are some really great people in the sub-reddit that will be glad to help you out.


ps...My wife's interest in Orthodoxy isn't at the same place as mine. In my opinion it's best not to rush them or try to crame Orthodoxy down their throats in our new found enthusiasm. Pray for them, be patient and trust God to work on her heart is His own timing :)

This is at least partially true, we all too often explain rather than deduce. However, it also means we have reason to trust extrinsic evidence over intrinsic evidence, and demand our beliefs converge as closely as possible with the findings of science, which is name we've given to the best set of tools we've created for removing bias from our understanding.

If any religion was true, it should be increasingly convergent over time, not increasingly divergent. See also the problem of inconsistant revelations.

I'm not a Christian because no evidence has been proposed that makes Christianity exceptional, and lots has been proposed that makes it wrong in it's traditional formulations. See for example the lack of an historical Adam, which is highly damaging to the Pauline view of Christianity.

Also, the Bible is just plain wrong on the first 13 billion years of the universe, the first ~247,000 years of the human species, the first at least 47,000 years of socially modern humans, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the grand united Davidic kingdom(though there was likely a local Davidic Kingdom, whose size and power are still debated as new evidence appears), and just about everything else before the 8th century BC. It's clear from textual clues the historical David was pumped up to justify the political ambitions of Josiah (who, you'll recall, "just happened" to "find" the Deuteronomic books that were "lost".) From then on it's a heavily biased book, demonizing the acts of certain rulers and glorifying others, in ways that don't seem to fit the historical record. The stories it contains condone misogyny, genocide, homophobia, slavery, etc as we should expect as the natural writings of the wisdom of desert dwellers in 8th to 4th century BC. (For more, see The Bible Unearthed, which despite being 10 years old has aged quite well. The only debated part in the journals has been just how small the Davidic kingdom is, but no one is arguing for the grand united Davidic kingdom as seen in the Bible.)

The Bible is not all bad of course, some of the writers had lofty goals like social justice and care for the poor in mind. But it certainly doesn't read like the perfect revelation of an almighty God. Most scholars would happily agree with me, and seek to increasingly mystify the Bible. (See Borg's Reading the Bible Again For the First Time for one of the better examples.)

You'll note William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, though accomplished philosophers, both heavily lean on the "internal witness of the Holy Spirit" for their own belief. Once again, this is introspection, and devalues the religious experiences of every other religion out there.

If there were other evidence that led us to think any of this might be true, I'd be happy to go that way. But so far, I have not found any. The best argument that takes all the evidence into account is Spongs, given in Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and A New Christianity for a New World. Like many modern theologians, he has retreated into a panentheistic view of God, who is out there but outside of the reach of our understanding, and demotes all holy books to the writings of humans trying to understand this being. This at least is cogent, though once again it mostly boils down to mistaking introspection for facts.

I've written before on what it would take for me to believe, and as you'll see if you read it, it's pretty much "convergent evidence". Right now, no religion has that, and each one says they are justified based on introspection.

Science converges based on an external reality, religion diverges based on biased introspection and mutual competing claimed "revelations" that clearly aren't.

And that is in a nutshell why I'm an atheist. (At least that's what I tell myself. ;-)

(Sorry for the preaching, but it was just about the perfect setup ;-)

Anyone worth their mettle in religion understands the Bible has been largely exaggerated, and people who take the bible absolutely LITERALLY are the Fake-Catholics/Christians I am talking about.

We know the Bible was pretty much curated during the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D - where due to the impending collapse of the roman empire, Italy HAD TO be converted into Catholicism, or face absolute fucking Anarchy.

So any/all accounts of God/Jesus were erased, and now we have the Divine, hence why from 12-25 years of Jesus's life are missing, and when/why all religious holidays are decided, how to pray, etc.

Also, the Church was incredibly corrupt back in the day, controlling most of the World's currency, and Fate of entire countries.

The Modern Catholic, very much differs with the whole "concept" of religion most people seem to think - when I tell them "I'm religous", we pray and do everything else, but the modern church has changed drastically, to the point that we do believe in Aliens, Accept gays into church, and Pope Francis literally appoints special council hunting pedophiles - we believe in science too, Great Men of science like Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo (who literally defied the church), Georges Lemaitre (who worked with Einstein on his relativity equation - was a priest), and Many NASA Austronauts are devout catholics.

None of them, however, claimed that - literally - God spoke to them (as these bozos claim - like a full convo), No - when "God speaks to you" literaly means you were inspired by God from someone, through something - painters call this a "Muse" in Faith, we say "God Spoke" or "God has Spoken" - as in it's God's will.

When speaking about religion, try not to look at it from the literal point of view, when God speaks, he speaks through someone, your mom, dad, whoever - you hear the right thing, and you act.

Again, when someone literally says "God Spoke to me" and they had a "Conversation about what to do" - that's when the greatest crimes in history have been commited, not because he actually TOLD YOU and you REPLIED, but because you wanted to say he Spoke to you and YOU ONLY, and people will always have an Agenda, when speaking like that, hence their plane BS.

To your last point, we do have actual historical evidence as to when Catholicism came about - Reza Azlan, has a PH.D in religion and has actually written about this - https://www.amazon.com/ZEALOT-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X

Regardless of your beliefs, Jesus did indeed exist, and was a very prominent figure well known for prominent figure performing actual Miracles, like healing Lepers, and resurecting Lazarus (historical evidence of this is true) , and he founded his own Church through one of his Disciples - Peter (who became the first Pope Ever) around 30 AD - this is a historical fact.

We know too - Jesus was so prominent, he shows in other religious sacred texts, like Jewish, and the Quran, which his name is mentioned more times than Mohammed.

If you only read one book on the subject it should be Robert Grant's Augustus to Constantine. It's a tremendous piece of scholarship, in-depth without being overwhelming or boring, and Grant does an excellent job of situating the rise of Christianity against the background of the larger Roman Empire.

Other suggestions:
Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is a classic survey, but it's a bit dated now. Still a very accessible introduction, cheaper and shorter than the Grant.

Peter Brown is, in my opinion, one of the greatest historians who's ever lived and he has written extensively on Late Antique Christianity. For this specific topic, I'd suggest The World of Late Antiquity or The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity. The advantage of Brown is that he's also a fantastic writer.

Another interesting source is Robert Louis Wilken's *Christians as the Romans Saw Them. While it won't give you a full survey of Christianity's rise, it provides the perspective of pagan thinkers reacting to the strange, barbarous, troubling religion that is Christianity. This one is more of a supplement to the other listed works, but I think it helps really understand Christianity against the religio-cultural background of the Roman Empire.

Finally, the great primary source on the subject is Eusebius's *History of the Church. Obviously Eusebius, the 4th century bishop, doesn't match up to modern standards of historical accuracy, but you still get a comprehensive picture of the rise of Christianity that's pretty darn fun to read. Read with a critical eye, it's a terrific source. Also, it's available for free online. (also Eusebius basically invented documentary history, so that's kinda neat)

If you want more recommendations, or want more specific suggestions, I'd be glad to help out. My strongest recommendation are the Grant and the Brown.

Posting a comment to someone else as top-level, because the original isn’t appearing:


>However, your full disclosure makes it seem like you are posting with a prerogative being a non-Christian in a Christian sub.

I don't think that's the right word you were trying to use, but I think I get what you are trying to say: An agenda, if you will? I'd say that's actually a pretty fair assessment. If you check my post history, you'll come to an understanding rather quickly on my feelings towards the CoC in general. In a broader sense, my "agenda" is to shed some light on the simplified, white-washed history the church sets itself upon, but more specifically calling out legalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and behaviors for what they are.

>I would encourage you to use sources to back up your claims.

Well, then. Sources incoming.

>If you Google “early church used musical instruments” the first few sources I clicked on said the early church did not use instrumental music. I challenge you to do the same and see for yourself instead of taking my word on it.

A challenge? Are you making an assumption that I am unfamiliar with how to perform research? I will point out: simply taking the first couple links' "word for it" is a poor way to research. For example, performing this search of yours results in the the entire first page being nothing but christian news articles or apologetic pages, neither of which approach things from a critical, scholarly perspective. Secondly, I'd like to point out that very little is known about music in the first century, especially among the Jews and Christians, because so much was either never written down or has been lost to the ages. What you'll find, however, is that the use of music was on the tongues of several church fathers. These church fathers made mention of separating themselves from ancient Jewish traditions as well as from pagan practices...these arguments, however, appear to be of man-made opinion, do they not? Here are some sources:

• LINK - Here is a Master's dissertation by (now) Dr. Jade Weimer. This dissertation explores the Jewish and Pagan roots of instruments used for both liturgical purposes and in idol-worship and describes in detail the factors associated with the early churches' departure from instrumental usage. One thing to point out here is that early Christianity was primarily comprised of former pagans, who had grown up worshiping many gods in various ways. The early church didn't divorce themselves from instruments because God wished for it to be so, but because the leaders in the church wished to separate themselves from their former pagan, idol-worshiping practices.
  
  
• LINK - Here is another Master's dissertation with a similar outline
  
  
• LINK - Here is a research paper detailing, specifically, the church father's thoughts on instrumental music.
  
  
• LINK - Here is a book that covers the pre-Christian musical practices of ancient Israel. This should provide an expanded background on the truncated backgrounds detailed in the first two papers.
  
  
  I located these by using simple keyword searches on Google Scholar and SagePub. I'm sure I could find more resources, given more time. If you'd like to read the texts associated with the cited 1st century sources in the above papers, you can find a catalog of nearly everything HERE.
  
  Edit: clarity
  
  Edit 2: missed a point:
  
  >Secondly, no one should think the Old Testament is an apostasy.
  
  That's not what I meant; apologies for not being clear enough. When I say the NT was all that was and that anything else was apostasy, what I was referring to was not the OT, but to the multiple Christian groups that were coming about and evolving in the 1st century. For example, the only thing we knew about the Gnostics was the polemics against them by other ancient writers. That is, until the 1940's when the Nag Hammadi library was discovered. In fact, there were many Christian sects that were in existence in the first century, from the Essenes, to the Gnostics (although, this is really a compilation of many different groups that all kind-of based their understanding of Christianity and Jesus on the Platonic thought prevalent during the Hellenistic period), the Maniches, etc. A good synopsis of these can be located in Bart Ehrman's book, Lost Christianities. Bart also has a Great Courses class on audible under the same title; the course text can be found HERE. So when I say that all else is apostasy, what I mean is that holding to such a strict adherence to "NT-only Christianity" ignores much of the history on the how and why those letters were chosen, how and why the orthodoxy that "won" among the other sects, etc. This in itself is a huge topic and has been covered time and again by modern scholarship, however, if you'd like me to point you in a direction I can recommend some readings.
  
  Edit 3: it appears I've been reported or something, so this comment isn't showing up. Sweet
  
  One more edit to address this point:
  
  >However, I think the goal is to match the Church how it was in the beginning as closely as possible.
  
  I actually don't think this is as clear of a picture as some would describe. With the "commands, examples and necessary inferences" mantra, a majority of the 5 acts of worship are built upon inference only. For example:
  
  
• Singing
  
  • The verses often cited for this are Eph. 5:19 and Col 3:16. In their contexts, neither of these are in reference to a worship setting, as they are both in reference to holy living.
    
  • There's also 1 Cor 14, which is nearly entirely dedicated to speaking in tongues, however v. 15 is sandwiched in the middle that says "sing with understanding". The greater context of this reveals, however, that one should be singing in an intelligible language, not in a tongue no one understands.
    
• Giving
  
  • The primary verse for this is 1 Cor 16:2, which states "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." What the context reveals is that Paul is collecting funds to give to the brethren in Jerusalem, which is the finale of his journey. He even asks the congregation to write letters that he will give along with the monetary gift (v3). So, again, there is no command here, but yet another inference.
    
    
    I'm sure I could go on, but 2 is enough for now (and I'm running late on some plan's I've made). When approached critically, what we find is that "matching the church of the first century" is a little harder to do than what is proposed. One can infer, sure! One can infer many things about the practices of the early church, but there is no clear biblical picture painted on the topic at all. We do have an extra-biblical text that outlines some practices within the church, The Didache, and this is dated somewhere between 50-120 AD, so it could be rather early, around Paul's writings, or it could be much later...but it outlines in quite a bit of detail on what could be considered "acts of worship."

I spent my whole life in a Christian family; I was home-schooled until I came to college, with Bible verses and stories just about every day. I would have called myself a decent Christian then, and I'd have to say that I lived a good god-centric Christian life.

But then I came to college. And it wasn't the transition of going to college, but that time in my life, because soon before I went to college I too started having doubts about Christianity. One of my best friends and I decided that we were going to search for TRUTH (as we called it) and answer all challenges brought against Christianity. We had this idea that there was absolute truth out there somewhere, and we were going to find it. The first thing we decided, however, was that we would explore with an open mind, do enough of our own research that we wouldn't have to take someone else's word for granted, and that above all else, no matter what we learned we would strive for the truth of the matter, even if that meant no longer believing in Christianity -- though that seemed unlikely at the time.

I spent a long time learning, spent an incredible amount of time day and night when I first began, and I'm still learning new things to this day, directly and indirectly related to my original search. I remember being overwhelmed when I first started because there were so many topics! Christianity is a big subject, where do you even begin? Church history, the different denominations, "the trinity" issue, proofs of one form or another about the existence of God, literary analysis, ancient near east history, flood/global geology, evolution, original sin, the specific interpretation of words from ancient languages, questions about who authored what book and whether it mattered -- and later additions, why some works were included in the Bible and some weren't, "miracles," and on and on. Some of those I haven't researched much at all, and I probably never will, but it turned out that I didn't need to. But I did spend hours and hours and hours learning about these things, and I came to my own conclusions that I feel I can justify without just taking someone else's opinion as authority (as in, no research on my part).

I started out with The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and Mere Christianity and they seemed to have a lot of really solid facts. Until I started doing my own research. See some of the commentary on infidels.org about that Josh McDowell book. I encourage you to read some more about the ontological argument. A recent look at what the Bible says happened, and what history says happened (they don't always align) is covered in several places, e.g. The Bible Unearthed and the NOVA episode based on that. One of the biggest things I learned was in my ethics class at college, were I had a very good teacher explain how absolute truth just doesn't work (There are more qualified people than myself which can discuss that). Although there are many many reasons I am no longer a Christian, this was one of the big ones.

I guess what I'm trying to say with the above is that it's important to do your own work; come to a conclusion that you can defend, even if it's one you don't really like. I think I would always have doubts about the things I believe if I didn't do that. The answers I found did not lead me to a nice happy peaceful belief in an afterlife. That's gone. Sometimes I have panic attacks about that, but it's gotten better over the years. I think feeling lost and confused is a normal step in the process of having your beliefs torn apart. Recovering from that takes time, and lots of thought. A lot of other people have similar feelings, it might be worth checking out.

Let me just leave you with this Neil deGrasse Tyson quote:

The problem, often not discovered until late in life, is that when you look for things
like love, meaning, motivation, it implies they are sitting behind a tree or under a
rock. The most successful people recognize, that in life they create their own love,
they manufacture their own meaning, they generate their own motivation.

For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world
than I knew yesterday. And along the way, lessen the suffering of others. You'd be
surprised how far that gets you.

I've had a similar obsession with the bible over the years. It made no sense to me when I was part of a church but everything opened up once I realized it's one of the best insights we have into the ancient mind and I find it fun to read now.

The top response to this post says the god of the Old Testament is the same as the god of the New but that's because they are looking at it only as a religious text. Looking at it as a historical document you can clearly see a progression over time from a Polytheistic War god at the beginning who demands blood sacrifices to a Monotheistic vengeful god of a chosen few. The New Testament is clearly written with Greek/Roman influences and a kinder god that was changed in ways to better fit and grow in that society.

If you haven't read it already, a good first book on the subject is Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman. I like The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein and Ehrmann's books are good too. There are dozens of other good overviews that show the Bible's progression from ancient campfire stories to the form we see today. After reading a few, I don't see how anyone can seriously believe the Bible is the unerring word of god.

I know I'll never convince my family members that Christianity is wrong so I've focused my efforts to get them to understand the bible was written by man. Even if we grant them that a god actually spoke to Moses and Jesus is his literal son neither man wrote the words in the book. Later men took the stories and wrote them down. The books of the Torah were finalized 600+ years after Moses is supposed to have lived. The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus is said to have died. These writers were not gods and to say they were divinely inspired is a cop-out. They interpreted what they heard but these men were also products of their times. They practiced blood sacrifice and accepted slavery nor did they have a fraction of our understanding of the world. It's why you can't take the book literally.

There may be truths in the Bible but you have to look behind the words to find them.

I'd suggest Jimmy Akins The Fathers Know Best which compiles quotes from the Church Fathers and Akins enumerates them based on subject. It's not comprehensive but it's a good start and touches on a lot of things such as doctrines and dogmas, teachings and long held Church belief like contraceptives. It's a great book if you just want to look up what the Fathers have said and it's a great apologetics tool if you want to back up your positions. Either way, I think the following three books might be more inline with what you're looking for.

• Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea by Jim Papandrea.
  
  I haven't read this one, but I do know the author and it looks like it's right up your alley. Papandrea is a Catholic professor and this book covers important documents from the Early Church period and dissects the texts and explains them to you.
  
  
• [When the Church Was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers] (https://www.amazon.com/When-Church-Was-Young-Fathers/dp/1616367776/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1479111666&sr=8-3&keywords=church+fathers) by Marcellino D'Ambrosio
  
  Another book that is similar to Papandrea's book.
  
  
• Father's of the Church
  
  Similar in content to the last two. Worth checking out.
  
  And here's if you want to read the Church Fathers directly
  
  I've constantly heard that the Jurgens 3 volume set was one of the best physical sets to buy. It's pricey, but I do know that it's cheaper on ebay so might be worth looking for it on there. (That is assuming you're within the US)
  
  
• Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Collection by Phillip Schaff.
  
  I suggest you buy it digitally for next to nothing, it's great on Kindle and works well as a more comprehensive resource for studying the Fathers. His set is also digitalized online if you'd like to read it there for free. Absolutely no difference in content. Word of caution though, Schaff translated this in the late 19th century and was a Protestant, so his commentary may not always be historically and theologically sound. He does provide an exhaustive amount of footnotes that maintain the citations the Fathers used which is a task of its own. A great resource but with certain limitations.

Šulmu, /u/KlingonLinux! I gotchoo on "Canaanite" and Israelite (they were more or less the "same" people religio-culturally for most of Antiquity, and definitely genetically/ethnically) and Punic/Phoenician (Iron Age Levantine ["Canaanite" and Israelite peoples and so on] peoples abroad throughout the Mediterranean as far West as Southern Spain/the island of Ibiza and North Africa) sources, awīlu.

Some necessary clarification : I routinely put "Canaanite" in scare-quotes, because there was no definitive, proto-national much less national identity for so-called "Canaanites" in the way that Israelites and Judahites eventually had by the 1st millennium BCE, and the people of Syro-Palestine during the Middle to Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age would overwhelmingly identify and operate by clan, by tribe, or by city-state before calling themselves and operating as Knaʿni (Ugaritic, meaning "people of Canaan"). "Canaanite" religious forms consonantly varied quite noticeably by city-state, in ways that, say, Egyptian ones did not, even taking into account "alternative" (but not competing) Egyptian local theologies and so on. Speaking in perhaps excessively general terms, there was a State religion overarching the regional ones in Egypt which, in effect, bound them together as a cooperative dynamic unit. "Canaan" as such had no such large-scale, cohesive "religious infrastructure" of Egypt's much less Mesopotamian Kingdoms' and Empires' like, and it didn't "help" that the exceptionally powerful Egyptian Empire of the Late Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom Periods and contemporaneous Mesopotamian and Hittite Empires were constantly vying for control of the North Sinai and Syro-Palestine. The economic centers of "Canaan" were, indeed, frequently subservient to Egypt throughout Bronze Age history, with Egyptian Kings investing governors and mayors of its own throughout "Canaanite" territories following the Thutmosid Conquest, much to the personal danger of said governors and mayors (who were neither particularly liked nor trusted by their Levantine subjects nor by Egyptian officials) and much to the cantankerous chagrin of the Levantine peoples living under Egyptian Imperial rule. Which is to say nothing of Egyptian-mandated relocations of restive Levantine people and so forth.

Furthermore, Hebrew Biblical literature intensely confuses what "Canaanite" even means in a religio-cultural sense, using the term simply to inveigh against religious beliefs and conventions, regardless of actual origin, Deuteronomic Jews did not wish to see carry over from their ancestral religion(s)/culture(s) and from neighboring religions/cultures (e.g., Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions/cultures. See Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 7, and Ezekiel 23 as but three illustrations of the aforementioned) into newly-minted Judaism and what had then become the Israelite-Judahite "national" identities (primarily in politically-motivated defiance, it should be noted, of their later Master, the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which had made of the internally-fractured Kingdoms of Israel and Judah satellite states through rigorous opportunistic military conquest and serious economic and political strong-arming, beginning with the great and cunning King Tukultī-apil-Ešarra/"Tiglath-Pileser" III). A few scholars and especially many would-be Revivalists not academically-trained frequently, unwittingly hang their understanding of "Canaanite" upon all this confusion -- and the latter not in anything like a Jewish context nor through a Jewish hermeneutic, either, while still treating iffy Jewish accounts embedded in Scripture entirely too literally, which makes it an even more weird and defunct confusion.

Now, it's very important to form a baseline understanding of the historical circumstances of the Near East concerning "Canaan," what came out of it, its influential neighbors, and religio-cultural receptors. I know it feels like unnecessary drudgery to many people, but the religious tidbits don't make much sense and their use in/continued relevance to Modernity can't be adequately evaluated without learning and understanding their historical contexts, which is where a lot of would-be Revivalists go very wrong, in my opinion -- especially since "Canaanite" and other non-Kemetic ANE religious Revivals are still very much in their formative stages and aren't being led by people with necessary, thorough backgrounds in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. For this, I recommend beginning with Donald B. Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Marc Van De Mieroop's A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000 to 323 BC, Amanda H. Podany's Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East, and Mark Woolmer's Ancient Phoenicia: An Introduction. They're not short texts, apart from Woolmer's that is, but they will give you a decent, fairly comprehensive understanding of the circumstances of the ANE.

Concerning "Canaanite" and Israelite, etc., religious details and developments, just about anything by Mark S. Smith, Rainer Albertz (namely, this massive text he co-authored with Rüdiger Schmitt), Daniel E. Fleming, and Dennis Pardee are quite sound.

Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd Edition edited by Mark S. Smith and Michael D. Coogan is probably where you're looking to start vis-a-vis "Canaanite" religion(s), as most people like to get at the mythic material first and foremost. After that, I would definitely recommend picking up The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series), along with Pardee's Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Writings from the Ancient World) and Nicolas Wyatt's Religious Texts from Ugarit -- there should be a free PDF of the latter still floating around the nets somewhere.

While William Foxwell Albright has since become outdated in areas, his works are nevertheless necessary, now "classic" reads. Of particular use and importance is his Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths

Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day and the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition are handy, but relatively scarce and expensive.

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger is a much-beloved scholar of mine, though be aware that in The Riddle of the Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East -- one of the very few decent and comprehensive texts in ANE "comparative religious studies" -- wherein he addresses a few major Levantine Gods like Ba'l-Hadad, he unfortunately demonstrates a very poor comprehension of Greek, so if you ever pick that title up please do remember to take his interpretations in the chapter concerning the Phoenician God Melqart with a metric ton of salt.

Aaron J. Brody's Each Man Cried Out to His God: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers was a short, widely-accessible, and enjoyable volume; he covers quite a few lesser-known and under-explored elements of Levantine religions therein.

It sounds like a lot, I'm sure, and there's so much more to read and discuss beyond all these, but hopefully this will provide a decent springboard for you into the crazy, wonderful world of Levantine religions.

I hope this helped, and if you need anything else on this, or concerning Mesopotamia and Egypt, feel free to ask anytime.

It's actually really interesting that you state that location and time frame because that's probably where Christian communities had the least interaction after the Destruction of the Temple in 66 CE.

Diarmaidd MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is a great reference and a really easy read. It's a big ol' tome, but he sections it really well. His take is that during the first Jewish revolt in 66 the early Christian Jews fled Jerusalem since they didn't have as much of a stake in Jewish Nationalism. After that point they never really returned to Jerusalem until communities like St. Jerome's monastery moved in in the 4th century. (There was a small community there. Jerome's emigration from Rome to Jerusalem was seen as a major imposition by the then Bishop of Jerusalem.)

Anyways, back to the main question. Before around 40 CE the two communities were fairly indistinguishable. The Synagogues served as the locus of both Christian and Jewish religious life. This makes more sense if we think of the Synagogue less as a specific place with a specific congregation and more as a "community center." It was (like its name suggests) a gathering place for study and discussion. The book of Acts (which covers a timeframe from around 36-60 CE.) frequently shows this not going well. In Acts 7 Stephen (regarded by the Church as the first Martyr) preaches in the Synagogue of the Freedmen and almost immediately afterwards they stone him. We can't take that as a broad-spectrum statement on how relationships were across all communities, but it was certainly something that effected early Christian communities. Acts records Paul frequently speaking in Synagogues and it doesn't always end badly. Acts 17 is a microchosm of mixed responses, and that's probably a fair way to look at the whole situation, it was a mixed bag.

By the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 its pretty clear that we're talking about two separate communities doing two separate things with a general disregard for one another. By this point the Christian communities are starting to form distinctive forms of worship and self governance.

To see what Christians thought about Jews in the 2nd Century I'd highly recommend reading Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Its written in the form of a classical dialogue with a straw-man interlocutor but its a fair assessment of what Christians thought of Jews in the 2nd century.

Hope that helps.

Edit: I should say that most of what I was talking about Geographically was happening in Asia Minor and Southern Greece. Also, I don't mean to give the impression of taking Scripture as purely historical fact, but I think its a fair way to get a feel for what early Christian Communities thought about the situation, which is more helpful for your question anyway.

I'm vaguely familiar with some references to early Christianity in the Talmud, I'd be really interested to hear about this from the perspective of a Diaspora Scholar.

This is a rather long story, but I will try to make it short and sweet.

It started when I was, without warning and explanation, kicked out of my Church. I received a call the day after my first child was born telling me I was no longer welcome. To this day I do not know the reason, but I suspect personal vendettas. I found myself without a job and entered a crises of faith. This emotional blow started my path on what I would consider an intellectual journey.

After a few months, my wife and new child eventually found a few new churches to attend. I was looking for a new preaching job. I eventually moved several states away and decided to take a break for a bit and get a job in the "real" world. I still taught classes, preached occasionally, and even door-knocked, but it was the last time I was on church payroll. (God, you should hear the audio of my teachings. Talk about FUBAR.)

Eventually, my views became more and more "liberal' as I did more reading on scriptural interpretation. I began looking into Messianic Judaism and eventually came to realize that Jesus' supposed purpose was redundant. The forgiveness of sins were possible to the Jews even without sacrifice, and to Gentiles by living noble lives. What, then, was the purpose of the Christ? It seemed to me to make salvation infinitely more difficult... doesn't sound like something a loving god would do.

I started to search the Old Testament much closer and discovered several things. There are actually very, very few prophesies that can be ascribed to Jesus, and most of these are clear forgeries. For instance, the death of Jesus is never actually prophesied in the Old Testament. Something was amiss, and I started deep studies in textual criticism. I began to suspect the New Testament wasn't inspired and starting studying actual Judaism.

Around this time, I started reading the book, Misquoting Jesus and my eyes were opened. I was dumbfounded and started doing much deeper study. I concluded that the New Testament (and later the whole Bible) was simply a set of old documents. Certainly not inspired and certainly not perfect.

What was even more confusing is that many Christian professors/scholars knew this, but were still believers. This was completely nonsensical to me. In my mind, the inspiration of the scriptures were a critical corner stone of Christianity. If the witness wasn't infallible, than the entire religion fell apart like a house of cards. If god could raise Jesus from the dead, how much easier would it be to protect the evidence? If god couldn't perform that simple feat, then... well... FAIL.

At this point, I still believed in a god, and was very, very confused. I started studying other religions in depth. I bought dozens and dozens of books. The more I read, the more I realized a very profound, albeit simple, truth: virtually all religious people, deep in their heart, really believe they're right. How was I supposed to know which god to follow?

I then decided to go even further out of my box, and study evolution, from an "insiders" perspective. I probably have every single creationist / anti-evolutionist book in existence, but I figured if I had gotten Christianity wrong, and I was deceived, it could very well be possible that I didn't know jack shit about evolution--which turned out to be the case.

As soon as I understood the "miracle" of evolution, I instantly realized god was a fabrication; a lie. Reading The God Delusion put the final nail on the coffin. (Dawkins is my hero. I wish I could shake that man's hand. I felt he has saved my life. This man truly does great work. Whereas before I had a complete disdain for science, mathematics, etc., I now became eager to learn everything I could. Whole new worlds were opened up, and I wanted to know how everything worked. I mean, who knew nature was so cool?!)

TL;DR Damn, nature; you're awesome.

> It can't be proved either way...

Actually, it can be - at least in the case of the Abrahamic religions and their gods.

You'll notice I used the plural term there - godSSSSSS.

There are actually several gods - deities - incorporated into the bible's forms of worship. You won't learn about this from any Watchtower Society literature, because the Watchtower Society's bible "translations" fail to use the oldest manuscripts and information available nowadays. Plus, it's in their interest to keep average Jehovah's Witnesses from knowing that there are several gods incorporated into a supposedly "one" god, in the bible.

First, "Jehovah" is a mistranslation of the YHWH consonants with the vowels of the title "Elohim".

There are two "names" for the Hebrew god, right there. Although if one traces the origins of the name/term "Elohim" back to its CANAANITE roots, one finds that "Elohim" originally was PLURAL, in the Canaanite language & polytheistic belief system.

From: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Canaanite_Religion

>The Canaanite pantheon was conceived as a divine clan, headed by the supreme god El; the gods collectively made up the elohim.

Then there's the Canaanite patriarchal god "EL" - as in Isra-EL, Beth-EL, Samu-EL, Dani-EL, and so on.

The OLDER Canaanite patriarchal god EL is deeply incorporated into the Israelite/Hebrew culture - and the bible itself.

Also, "EL" and YHWH are NOT the same god...

From: http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

>First, the name Israel is not a Yahwistic name. El is the name of the deity invoked in the name Israel, which translates: “May El persevere.”2 This suggests that El was seen as the chief god in the formative years of Israel’s religious practices. In fact, the etiological story explaining the origin of the name Israel occurs in Genesis 35:9-15, where Jacob obtains this name through the blessing of El Shaddai, that is “El of the Mountain.”

>Second, there exist numerous parallels and similarities between descriptions and cultic terminology used for El in the Canaanite texts and those used for Yahweh in the biblical sources (see below). At some point, it is ascertained, the cultic worship of Yahweh must have absorbed that of El, through which means Yahweh assimilated both the imagery and epithets once used of El.

And honey, that's just the tip of the iceberg. You may want to check out these two books which come at this information from two different viewpoints:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X

http://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Have-Wife-Archaeology/dp/0802863949

Which brings me to another part of your comment:

>but I find the argument that someone, an intelligent force, could have created this magnificent world we live in.

Maybe, but it certainly wasn't the all-of-3,000-years-old bible god YHWH.

The very oldest bits of bible verse ever found are barely 3,000 years old.

From: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/01/06/The-Blessing-of-the-Silver-Scrolls.aspx#Article

>Excavations in Jerusalem in 1979–80 by Gabriel Barkay turned up two amulets dating from the late seventh century BC.1 They were found in the fourth of several burial caves he discovered on an escarpment known as Ketef Hinnom, which overlooks the Hinnom Valley (Gehenna) just opposite Mt. Zion. Each amulet contained a rolled-up sheet of silver which, when unrolled, revealed the Priestly Benediction inscribed on them. The exact Hebrew words (translated into English) are:

>May Yahweh bless you and keep you;
May Yahweh cause his face to
Shine upon you and grant you
Peace (Coogan 1995: 45).

>Commented the late archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon:

>"This is now the earliest occurrence of a Biblical text in an extra-Biblical document, significantly predating the earliest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is also the oldest extra-Biblical reference to YHWH, the God of Israel (1987: 124; cf. King and Stager 2001: 306).

Notice that they are celebrating the fact that these bits of scripture date back to slightly AFTER 700 BC...

But there are many, many gods/goddesses/beliefs that are FAR older than the godSSS of the bible.

The Egyptian gods & goddesses are at least 1,000 years OLDER than the oldest Hebrew god[s].

From: http://www.theology101.org/egy/pyt/index.htm

>The Pyramid Texts were funerary inscriptions that were written on the walls of the early Ancient Egyptian pyramids at Sakkara. These date back to the fifth and sixth dynasties, approximately the years 2350-2175 B.C.E. However, because of extensive internal evidence, it is believed that they were composed much earlier, circa 3000 B.C.E. The Pyramid Texts are, therefore, essentially the oldest sacred texts known.

The goddess of the temples of Malta are at least 3,300 years OLDER than the oldest Hebrew god[s]. From: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/132

>The Megalithic Temples of Malta (Ġgantija, Ħaġar Qim, Mnajdra, Skorba, Ta’ Ħaġrat and Tarxien) are prehistoric monumental buildings constructed during the 4th millennium BC and the 3rd millennium BC. They rank amongst the earliest free-standing stone buildings in the world and are remarkable for their diversity of form and decoration.

The deities of the temples at Gobekle Tepe are at least 7,000 years OLDER than the oldest Hebrew god[s]. From: http://gobeklitepe.info/

>Welcome to the presentation of the The World’s First Temple, Gobeklitepe … a pre-historic site, about 15 km away from the city of Sanliurfa, Southeastern Turkiye. What makes Gobeklitepe unique in its class is the date it was built, which is roughly twelve thousand years ago, circa 10,000 BC.

The deities of the artists who made the cave paintings in southern France & Spain are at least 9,000 to 27,000 years OLDER than the oldest Hebrew god[s]. From: http://www.experienceardeche.com/page/the-chauvet-cave/56

>The Chauvet cave is situated next to the famous Pont d'Arc, above the old river bed upon which the Ardèche flowed before the archway opened up and changed its course. It contains a vast array (more than 1000) and unique collection of cave paintings dated between 32,000 - 36,000 years old which makes them some of the oldest cave paintings in the world.

The deities or forms of worship (likely animism, at first) of the aboriginal Australians are at least 36,000 to 73,000 years OLDER than the oldest Hebrew god[s] - depending on which date one chooses for the migration of the archaic Indian or southern Asian populations into Australia. From: http://www.aboriginalculture.com.au/introduction.shtml

>Australia's Aboriginal culture probably represents the oldest surviving culture in the world, with the use of stone tool technology and painting with red ochre pigment dating back over 60,000 years.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Beginning to see how puny & of what recent origin the bible's godSSSS are? But wait, we have one more stop to make on the timeline of human (but not Homo sapien) religions...

Finally, going back to the Acheulean cultures of the Homo erectus, the Berekhat Ram female figurine (possibly a poppet - a small deity figure kept as a charm to ward off evil) dates back at least 230,000 years & may be as old as 700,000 years. From: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehistoric/venus-of-berekhat-ram.htm

>The early Stone Age figurine of Berekhat Ram (Birkat Ram), discovered in hills north of Israel, is believed to be one of the oldest pieces of prehistoric sculpture known to archeology. Although initially highly controversial - as some paleontologists preferred to see it more as a product of natural erosion rather than a deliberate human act of creativity - its status now seems more secure following the discovery of a second similar and contemporaneous figurine - the Venus of Tan-Tan, in Morocco.... [bold & italics mine]

>The Venus of Berekhat Ram was created during the Acheulean culture of the Lower Paleolithic period of the old Stone Age, and has been dated to 230,000-700,000 BCE. The reason for the vagueness of its provenance is that it was found sandwiched between two layers of volcanic residue: an upper one dated about 230,000 BCE, and a lower one dated 700,000 BCE. This makes it (along with the effigy of Tan-Tan) the oldest example of mobiliary art ever recorded, and remarkably, it means that it predated Neanderthal man, and was created by an earlier hominid like Homo erectus.

So, the claim that the recently-generated Abrahamic "gods" could have had ANYTHING to do with the origins of the 4.5 billion year old earth & slightly older solar system (let alone the 12.8 billion year old universe) is laughable in the extreme.

[edit to fix stuff!]

First, go to a parish. We really do what the books say, but you can't learn the faith from books. The faith must be experienced and lived or you are missing 90% of Orthodoxy. If you do determine to go, go for a month before you make any decisions. Stand in the back and just absorb and listen without critical thought, but feel free to ask questions and participate as far as you are comfortable to. After that month, dig for every fault and fracture you can find. Ask questions about what you object to, demand explanations for what causes dissonance for you. Then start the process of making decisions. I might also suggest trying out the sign of the cross, a prayer book, and a little fasting, but that's up to you and any discussion you may have with a priest.

As for what got me started. Honestly, the thing that got me was the people here on reddit, particularly /u/silouan. There is a sizable contingent of us here here.

As far as the Church itself, I was struck by the sense of what's holy. There are parts of the building (the altar), our lives (daily prayers, fasting), our population (the clergy) that are intentionally set apart to service of God. This seems like a good and right reaction to God. I had never seen such reverence, awe, beauty, and worship as in an Orthodox church. 2 years in I'm used to things and my mind wanders as much as it did any place else, but the services still feel like worship and prayer, never a performance. As my mom once said (slightly paraphrased) "You actually deify Jesus."

Beyond that, I buy the historical arguments the Church can make regarding its connection to and constancy in adherence to the faith of the Apostles. There is a wealth of information regarding this in the form of both primary sources (Bible, Didache, Church Fathers, and so on), and in the form of modern summaries such as Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way.

It might also be interesting to note for a long time I didn't want to be Orthodox. Some of the stuff we do looks weird from the outside. Fasting it not easy. In the Americas choosing to live an Orthodox life goes against the stream of much of our thought, even the general Christian stream of thought. Choosing to truly live the faith to the fullest we can manage will make us counter-cultural anywhere. The Orthodox claims on truth are also very exclusive. The exclusive claims were also disturbing to my democratic, denominational tendences. I knew that by accepting this I was stepping out onto the last bastion of religion, or at least Christianity, for me. There is no place else for me to back up to. No surer foundation for me to search back in history for.

>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

My recommendations from books I read in the last year or so (yes, these are all VERY STRONG recommends curated from ~100 books in the last year) -

​

Science fiction-

Derek Kunsken's The Quantum Magician (I would describe it as a cross between Oceans Eleven with some not-too-Hard Science Fiction. Apparently will be a series, but is perfectly fine as a standalone novel).

Cixin Lu's very popular Three Body Problem series (Mixes cleverly politics, sociology, psychology and science fiction)

James A Corey's The Expanse Series (which has been made into the best sci fi tv series ever!)

Hannu Rajaniemi's Quantum Thief series (Hard science fiction. WARNING - A lot of the early stuff is intentionally mystifying with endless terminology that’s only slowly explained since the main character himself has lost his memories. Put piecing it all together is part of the charm.)

​

Fantasy-

James Islington's Shadow of What was Lost series (a deep series which makes you think - deep magic, politics, religion all intertwined)

Will Wight's Cradle series (has my vote for one of the best fantasy series ever written)

Brandon Sanderson Legion series (Brandon Sanderson. Nuff said. Creative as always)

​

Manga -

Yukito Kishiro's Alita, Battle Angel series (the manga on what the movie was based)

​

Non-Fiction-

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (and how we are not as rational as we believe we are, and how passion works in tandem with rationality in decision making and is actually required for good decisionmaking)

Rothery's Geology - A Complete Introduction (as per title)

Joseph Krauskopf's A Rabbi's Impressions of the Oberammergau Passion Play, available to read online for free, including a fabulous supplementary of Talmud Parallels to the NT (a Rabbi in 1901 explains why he is not a Christian)

​

Audiobooks -

Bob Brier's The History of Ancient Egypt (as per title - 25 hrs of the best audiobook lectures. Incredible)

​

Academic biblical studies-

Richard Elliot Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible and The Exodus (best academic biblical introductory books into the Documentary Hypothesis and Qenite/Midian hypothesis)

Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed (how archaelogy relates to the bible)

E.P. Sander's Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE ​(most detailed book of what Judaism is and their beliefs, and one can see from this balanced [Christian] scholar how Christianity has colored our perspectives of what Jews and Pharisees were really like)

Avigdor Shinan's From gods to God (how Israel transitioned from polytheism to monotheism)

Mark S Smith's The Early History of God (early history of Israel, Canaanites, and YHWH)

James D Tabor's Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (as per title)

Tom Dykstra's Mark Canonizer of Paul (engrossing - will make you view the gospel of Mark with new eyes)

Jacob L Wright's King David and His Reign Revisited (enhanced ibook - most readable book ever on King David)

Jacob Dunn's thesis on the Midianite/Kenite hypothesis (free pdf download - warning - highly technical but also extremely well referenced)

There are several very famous Catholic apologists who converted after reading about Church history and reading the works of the Church Fathers. Peter Kreeft is one such person. Scott Hahn is another (although his main impetus was finding Catholic doctrines in scripture rather than from reading the fathers).

There is a book called "Surprised by Truth" edited by Patrick Madrid which features the stories of 11 or so evangelicals who became Catholics and several of them had reading the fathers as a turning point.

Jimmy Akin has a book called The Fathers know best which could be a very good introduction (I haven't read but I very much appreciate Jimmy Akin's apologetic efforts, he has a very gentle and patient persona with a thorough and systematic approach).

Pope Benedict XVI spent a few years of his papacy talking about a different church father every Wednesday and he walked his way through all the major fathers from the late 1st century (Clement of Rome) to the 12th century (Peter Lombard). Ignatius Press has compiled all these talks into two volumes. Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine and Church Fathers and Teachers: From Saint Leo the Great to Peter Lombard.

I have read Benedict's introductions to the fathers and I enjoyed them immensely. He doesn't supply many quotations from them but he does give you an overview of their life and times, the focus of their theological works, and the significance of their works for us today. I profited a lot from reading them.

There is a work called The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the face of God by Robert Louis Wilken which is also a very useful overview of Christian theology in the first 7 centuries. His focus is less on the individual personalities of the fathers but more on the current of their thought and the intellectual climate that it was developing in. He covers liturgy, doctrinal development, Christology, faith and reason, interpretation of scripture, moral theology, arts and literature and a bunch of other stuff if I remember rightly. I profited from this book even more than the Pope Benedict ones I reckon.

Sorry for the late reply :)

Be the Bee is aimed at a younger audience, but good nonetheless; https://www.youtube.com/user/y2am

Father Barnabas puts a lot of stuff online, and I would say I am a fan; https://www.youtube.com/user/evanorth1

St. Vassa is popular, but I never really watched her stuff; https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH-FBwgf93rU-g8BH3xiuUQ

The Orthodox Church is said to be a good book for beginners to read, but I only have experience with The Orthodox Way (second link);

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Church-New-Timothy-Ware/dp/0140146563

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Way-Kallistos-Ware/dp/0913836583/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=41NsOK%2BN-1L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR103%2C160_&psc=1&refRID=Q586C5F1SZ5NXSYWQANR

The Orthodox Study Bible is also a great tool; https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594


Adoption is a great and selfless thing to do. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.


Good luck, and I hope your journey goes well.

Well, the proof is in the pudding, not in the list of ingredients on the side of the packaging of the pudding. To me, by the time I came to the point where I was asking myself what I really believe about the Eucharist, I had for the most part already seen enough to take the word of, not only the Church, but the earliest Christians, considering that's all we have to really go on. I mean, we're not just talking about some random people here but 2nd generation Christians, those who were taught by the Apostles themselves. If that is to come under scrutiny, then why not any other number of things they tell us? Why accept Christ's divinity or the doctrine of the Trinity or the Resurrection? All these things which were taught by the Apostles.

At some point, you become convinced of not just single subject matters, but of the legitimacy of the Church as a whole, you believe in the Church - not the individuals per se, but the body of teachings, and, more importantly, the transformative power of the way of living.

I would encourage you to more fully explore the links given in the thread I linked to, there is a wealth of information there which can take several months to take in and digest. And don't get hung up on single things like this, continue to investigate the Church as a whole. Have you read this book yet? It is probably the best introduction to the Church, both theologically and socially/historically.

Peace in Christ.

I really like history books that don't at first seem to be history books, but are explorations of societies sometimes seen through the lens of a single important concept or product. For instance, Mark Kurlansky has several books such as Salt; A World History, Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, The Basque History of the World, Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea that teach more history, and more important history than is usually taught in US public schools.

History need not be rote memorization of dates and figures. It can, and should be a fun exploration of ideas and how those ideas shaped civilizations. It can also be an exploration of what did not make it into the history books as Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament or his Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels attest.

I don't wish to come across as too glib about this, but I feel like the average person might well retain more useful knowledge reading a book like A History of the World in 6 Glasses than if they sat through a semester of freshman history as taught by most boring, lame generic high schools. I feel like often the best way to understand history is to come at it tangentially. Want to understand the US Constitution? Study the Iroquois confederacy. Want to understand the French? Study cuisine and wine. Want to understand China? Study international trade. And so it goes. Sometimes the best history lessons come about from just following another interest such as astronomy or math or cooking. Follow the path until curiosity is sated. Knowledge will accumulate that way. ;-)

> You are just not listening to me. That is not how 'evidence' works. Also, I have not heard historians comment on the veracity of Jesus' Resurrection. Do you have a credible source for this?

I am listening, the evidence you provided, the words of the Gospels, cannot be used to prove the miraculous claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be glad to, probably the most accessible work that I've come across is that of Dr. Bart Ehrman. He has vast knowledge of the New Testament (in its original Greek), but has also written many books aimed at the layman. I would start here:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499392033&sr=8-1&keywords=bart+ehrman

Also, he has given many public lectures, here is a good one to start with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd7Lanms-gY

> Again, you are changing the subject / moving the goal posts. I am not talking about proving anything. I am demonstrating that my claim is falsifiable, and it is.

How am I moving the goal posts? Your claiming that a miracle can be proven historically, as what you're presenting as falsifiable evidence is the gospels. I am correctly pointing out that a miracle, specifically someone being raised from the dead, cannot be proven historically.

> You are conflating two different types of definition for miracles. Divine intervention could happen daily, and it would still fit the qualification of a miracle of divine intervention. See the first definition here.

I'm assuming you mean this one: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." That is exactly what I am talking about. If it can't be explained scientifically, then it doesn't qualify as falsifiable evidence. You can choose to personally believe it, but you cannot claim it is scientifically viable evidence.

> You are mixing up easy ways of falsifying my world view verses the reason I think my world view is likely. Those two are not the same thing. You jumped to a huge conclusion that they were (and again, were changing the subject mid-conversation).

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm asking you for falsifiable evidence, not for "personal opinion on why your worldview is likely".

> Sure it is evidence, it is just very weak evidence. Someone saying they saw a burgler in the house next door is evidence there was one. It is not conclusive, but testimony is still evidence.

Of course, because that is commonplace and likely to have happened. There is nothing scientifically unlikely about a human being breaking into someone's house. If you testified in court that you believe your dead teacher broke into your house, you wouldn't be taken seriously.

> I think you are conflating generic evidence with empirical evidence (which you are associating with 'science'). They are not equivalent. Empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence available when talking about philosophy. Limiting yourself to empirical evidence is a false requirement you are putting up for yourself.

I'm not talking about philosophy. I'm talking about truth. Did Jesus really raise from the dead? No amount of philosophical reasoning can prove that point. Your evidence, words on a piece of paper, is no better than any other miraculous claim. There are thousands of documented miraculous events. How can you prove that yours is unique?

> What experiment is that that directly tests string theory? I think you are confusing being able to test something with the ability to conceive something indirectly based upon evidence available. There are many scientific hypotheses which are untestable.

Name one scientific hypothesis that is not testable. Why would any scientist make a hypothesis if he couldn't test it? Do you understand the scientific method? For the record, string theory makes predictions, and those predictions can be tested (and some scientists are even starting to devise ways to do so: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html).

> We were just talking about the Teleological Argument and the Fine Tuned Universe argument. These are clearly based upon scientific observation. Now your original claim that I am refuting here is that 'apologetic have nothing to do with science'. Please don't change the subject into whether or not they are falsifiable or testable. The subject is whether or not these arguments have anything to do with science.

If they aren't testable, they aren't scientific. If those two "arguments" were able to make predictions that were testable, they wouldn't be arguments any longer, they'd be theories. Again, you do not seem to understand the basics of the scientific method.

> All in all, I am not sure I want to continue this conversation. We have gone back and forth a lot, and you don't seem to understand much of what I am saying. You have the definition virtually every important word incorrect, and keep conflating things and changing subjects mid-stream. You also keep making assumptions about me that are incorrect. I don't think this debate is very productive.

See now, you got on me for calling you stubborn, yet you are falsely claiming I don't understand basic definitions. Please, if you take away anything from this: read and understand the scientific method. Second, give Bart Ehrman's book a read, it is fascinating.

EDIT: typos, also this video is a more relevant video from Ehrman: https://youtu.be/GhGLWSD-0N8?t=548. He discusses miracles in historical study.

It was a long series for me. I thank Christian apologists and theologians for teaching me the value of evidence, reason and logic. Seriously.

1. Started learning apologetics and theology as a hobby and to better "give a defense of the faith".
   
2. Learned about the importance of only believing things supported by evidence, reason and logic... but only applied them within Christianity. For example, I could see why Arminianism was wrong according to a Calvinistic worldview, but it never occurred to me to question Christianity itself until later.
   
3. Learned about skepticism and how to question everything. This lead to me giving up a lot of other bullshit beliefs and refusing to accept any extraordinary claims without good evidence... but it still never occurred to me to apply it to Christianity.
   
4. Between 2. and 3. I was wrestling with the fact that the best scientists in the world, for a long time now, have insisted that all the evidence points to an old earth and evolution as the origin of species. I tried to reason my way around the Bible's contradicting claims by supposing that God created the universe with the appearance of age and with the current species we have today, but evolution still couldn't be true. It didn't occur to me just how deceptive this would make God.
   
5. I noticed that the way Christians described evolution was completely different to the way scientists described evolution. I realised I probably didn't know as much about it as I thought I did, so I bought 'The Greatest Show On Earth' by Richard Dawkins. By Chapter 2 I was convinced evolution is the only explanation of the origin of species that is supported by evidence - and well supported it is.
   
6. I started wrestling with the biblical account of Creation again, trying to figure out how there can be original sin if Adam isn't a historical figure (because of evolution).
   
7. I can't remember where I originally read this, but it's also covered in The Bible Unearthed. I read about the true history of the Israelites, according to modern archaeological findings. It turns out that the first five books of the Bible are almost completely fabricated. No good evidence of Israelites in Egypt, no good evidence of an Exodus, no good evidence of the Israelites invading Canaan and sacking cities. In fact the Israelites were Canaanites and worshiped Canaanite gods. It wasn't until around 700 BC that the Biblical narrative (or an early form of it) was concocted to unite the divided nations of Judah and Israel.
   
   With the Biblical account of history and Creation revealed to be a complete fabrication, there was no good reason to believe the rest of it. I've been an Atheist for a few months now.

> I come from a very rural area of England but in my town alone we have an Anglican (High Church) church, a Catholic church, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, an Eastern Orthodox church, potentially some others I do not know about, and also there is a society of friends here.

Why not visit them all?

> However Works of Mercy are also an important part of the Catholic Church, so that point alone doesn't really help me decide, even though to me it's important that I am involved with a church which values Works of Mercy.

Works of Mercy should be something all Christians agree is important!

> The biggest issue in choosing which church to go to is that because I was not brought up religious at all and my family are so anti-religious I really don't know much about it, and have not explored my faith at all with anyone else so don't really know how I stand on a lot of the important divides between the denominations.

I suppose step one is learning what all these different groups teach, then. This is a surprisingly good introduction. For something more in depth, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is very good. If you really want to go in depth, A History of Doctrine (this is volume one of five) is pretty much comprehensive.

Of course, you shouldn't just sit in your house reading books. Get up and go visit all those churches you've mentioned. Speak with the priest/pastor/minister and ask them your questions about their church and it's teachings!

>lyric poetry 30% (mainly symbolism)
art history 25% (mainly Renaissance and symbolism)
Russian literature 15%
epic poetry 10%
philosophy 10% (mainly Greeks, Spinoza, Camus, etc.)
linguistics 5%
religions 5% (mainly Christianity)

I know you didn't express any interest in it in your post, but I'm going to give my case for Irish Gaelic.

It has a solid quantity of lyric poetry, epic poetry, symbolic art history, and historical Christian documents. I believe it would engage a full 75% of your interests.

How the Irish Saved Civilisation by Thomas Cahill is a book about the Christian monks of 5th-11th century Ireland. These monks are hailed as having maintained a beacon of literacy in Dark Age Europe with their religious and historical writings.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

Gaelic is also super interesting linguistically. Mordern Irish is nearly mutually intelligable with Old Irish. Far from being archaic or traditional, Gaelic is a punk rocker on the linguistics scene. It doesn't fit into your language's rat race of 'patterns', and 'rules'. Gaelic is simultaneously a graffiti language and an instrument of poetry. Ireland's poetic tradition is long and in both English and Irish.

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

Celtic art has quite a rich and ancient tradition. It's not the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel, but prehistoric through dark age Irish/Pictish art has many subtle secrets to appreciate. We didn't really understand the knotwork until the 20th century. The symbolic meaning of carvings in pre-historic Scotland are still shrouded in mystery today.

https://www.amazon.com/Celtic-Art-Methods-Construction-Instruction/dp/0486229238/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2NIOFHDXK0R0P&keywords=george+bain+celtic+art&qid=1554692813&s=gateway&sprefix=george+bain&sr=8-1

Irish is in a revival, Ireland is beautiful, and most importantly, Irish is on Duolingo.

I would recommend staying away from the polemics. Authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris all have books worth reading, but not really if you want a primer on atheistic alternatives in the areas of worldview, ethics, etc. I will say that Dawkins's earlier works on science would be good, but God Delusion is not an exposition of an atheistic worldview, but rather an attack on religion, and a messy, at times ignorant and oversimplified one at that (I bet I'll get crucified for saying that). As one religious studies student to another, it is a book that gets awfully frustrating every time you realize that he has a horrible grasp of the relevant data.

Books that would be really great to read:

George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is an approachable critique of some of the more popular arguments for God's existence.

Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Brief Insight is a really good and thorough survey of the explanation, arguments, history, and ethics of atheism.

Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe really gets into where someone goes once he/she has already concluded that God doesn't exist. He looks at how one builds a nonreligious life of meaning. Epstein is definitely in the "friendly atheist" category. As the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard (strange, oxymoronic titles aside) he has done a great deal of work with the Pluralism Project in their School of Divinity. He has even worked with inter-religious groups like the InterFaith Youth Core.

A long, but very much worth the time and highly recommended book is Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. In it, she goes very thoroughly through the long history of religious skepticism. She looks at the lives and questions of philosophers, scientists, poets, politicians, even some religious figures who have gone through the "dark night of the soul." This is a book that I think every atheist should read to learn that religious folks aren't the only ones with a long and storied tradition. It is a good grounding in history for secularists.

Academically its known that changes(be them scribal mistakes,intentional changes, paraphrasing or whatever) were most likely to add to scripture rather than remove scripture. This is part of why some have confidence that the original still exists within the manuscript traditions without any particular manuscript being the perfect one.

With that in mind, have you considered that its possible that its not that other translations removed anything but that the KJV added? You seem to have the assumption that KJV is the best version and deviance from there is deviance from scripture.

Its important to look at the differences, but its also important to look at WHY there are differences.

As an example the Comma Johanneum which is 1 John 5:7-8 lets look at verse 7 in the KJV

>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

and in most other translations:

>For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

You can see clearly that the other translations have removed a significant section and one that even matters doctrinally with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity.. Of course we generally don't base our belief in the Trinity on a single verse but on the whole revelation from God but this change is significant none-the-less.

So was it removed in an attempt to suppress scripture? No I wouldn't say so, the additionally stuff first appears in the early 1500s. 1400 years of transmission without it.

So is everyone else omitting it....or is the KJV(and its tradition) adding it?

In addition to the debate you linked I recommend the book by one of the debaters, James White: The King James Only Controversy - http://www.amazon.ca/King-James-Only-Controversy-The/dp/0764206052

> Deuteronomy 16:21 just came up in my reading. Awesome.

I love it! I love seeing the connections and getting a peek behind the curtain to get a sense of what things would have meant to the original audience!

Another on-topic book that is on my wishlist is The Early History of God by Mark Smith.

For getting your feet wet in OT scholarship, the go-to references are Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" (did I see someone else recommend that one?) and Kugel's "How To Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now". Those are the only general topic books that come to mind. Scrolling through my Amazon order history, everything else seems pretty specific . . . and random. Let me know if there is a specific area you are interested in

I cannot stress enough how fantastic the Yale lectures I linked to before are. If you can sit through those 24 lectures, you will have all the background you need to explore whatever area catches your eye.

As an aside, since you say you are in an exploration phase with your faith. I would double recommend James Kugel's book above. In the epilogue he comments that he is often asked how he is able to remain a devout Orthodox Jew knowing what he knows about biblical history. He says he reads the bible as the record of an ancient people trying to understand their god and to make sense of their place in the world, and to him it doesn't matter if the stories are true because he understands they are a product of their culture. (I'm tired, does that sound preachy?)

I'd also recommend one of Bart Ehrman's new books, "How Jesus Became God". There's also the youtube version.

Does Jesus even say he was god? Sounds like a silly question, but bear with me.

Probably all of Jesus' sayings are lifted from cynic philosphers. So it wasn't divine wisdom, it was just the wisdom of very real people, who weren't even christian.

Also, the last 12 verses of Mark weren't in the original version because the 4 oldest copies that scholars have of Mark, don't have that in there. Secondly, they have a different writing style and verbiage, as analyzed by experts. I don't have any links for that, but you seem resourceful and can probably turn that up.

"Who Wrote the Old Testament?" by Richard Elliot Friedman goes over a history of trying to figure out the authorship of the Pentateuch. Most of the authors, no one knows who the authors were, but we know it wasn't Moses. There are however some fairly good arguments for thinking the Deuteronomy author was Jeremiah. There's oftentimes some confusion about terms like "Who's on first?". Is "Who's on first" a question or declarative? If 'Who' is a person's name, it's a declarative, but it sure sounds like a question. Likewise, does saying 'son of god' mean that a person is a deity? Or is it just saying they are a child of god like we all are? Google 'children of god' and you'll see countless links referring to any human being as a child of god. They're not saying they are deities on the same level as god. Does calling someone messiah mean they are god? Not to people in the new testament. That meant something completely different, which Ehrman goes over in his book.

Does someone claiming they are god mean they are god? If someone says yes, then they would have to concede that A.J. Miller, a.k.a. Australian Jesus (yes this guy claims to be Jesus reincarnate) is god. He does in fact claim to be god.

"But Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead. That's proof that he's god.".
No, there are claims that he did that. Ask yourself, if some homeless person came up to you and claimed they rose from the dead and that their scars were proof of this, would you accept this? Hopefully not. It just pushes the claims to the authors of the gospels.

Paul, Mark, Luke and Matthew don't claim that Jesus was god. John most likely does, but the others don't. Why? Because there was no expectation of the messiah being divine. The messiah was just supposed to be someone who would restore Israel to statehood and rule under god's law, much like David.

Cheers, thanks!

Yeah I agree 100%. There was a period of like 5 or so years where I was a full blown atheist. I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective, but I definitely like having a very personal relationship with God, like I do now. I don't buy the whole "CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND MASTER PLANNER OF ALL THINGS" idea of God. The God I put credence in is more like a paternal figure that intervenes and gives you strength when you need it. Nothing more.

If you want a really good source on Jesus the man, and not Jesus Christ, then read this: http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375671861&sr=8-1&keywords=zealot

They aren't Orthodox theologians, but:

• Christianity: The First 3000 Years - can't beat this for an academic, accessible, comprehensive, and fair point of view of every corner of the Christian world in history. Literally every corner. You can skip chapters/parts that don't apply to Orthodoxy if you wish.
  
  
• A Short History of Byzantium -
  focuses more on the Byzantine Empire and so leaves out a lot of stuff, but it does cover the Ecumenical Councils and a lot of Orthodox history. There is also a harder-to-find 3 part trilogy of this abridged book.
  
  Orthodox Writings:
  
  
• Bishop Ware's The Orthodox Church has an overview, but it's pretty light.
  
  
• Orthodox Alaska provides a historical look at the history of Orthodoxy in Alaska, which is pretty great (and super interesting).
  
  There are probably not many good histories of the Church by Orthodox theologians, to be honest.
  
  

Yes, at least during Lent, Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays. It is not a universal moral law that is binding on non-Catholics who are thinking about joining the Church, but it is a praiseworthy spiritual practice for anyone.

Traditionally, Catholic moral theologians have held that deliberately denying oneself food is a requirement of the natural moral law which is binding on everyone, since all rational creatures have a duty to bring their bodily appetites under control. There are numerous examples of fasting in the Old Testament, both by individuals like Nehemiah (Neh 1:4) and David (Ps 35:13) and by all the people (2 Ch 20:3, Jer 36:9, Joel 1:14). Jesus took it as much for granted that his disciples would fast as that they would pray:

> When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to others to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you. (Mt 6:16-18)

Prescribing particular dates for fasting, however, is the role of the Church, which Jesus gave the power to bind and loose. (Mt 16:17-19) In the United States, abstinence from meat is now required (of those over the age of 14) on the Fridays of Lent, unless it is a feast which takes precedence over a Friday, like the Solemnity of St Joseph. Fasting—no meat, no casual snacking, and a substantial reduction in food intake overall—is required (of those between 21 and 60) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. It would be a serious matter for a Catholic to omit observance of all or many of the Fridays of Lent, even through carelessness; everyone is responsible for forming good habits and extinguishing bad ones.

To go a little into the history of this, fasting on a weekly basis is as old a practice as going to church on a weekly basis. The oldest Christian writings that we have apart from the New Testament are known as the Apostolic Fathers—the earliest of these books actually overlap in time with the latest books of the New Testament. In a book called the Didache from the First Century, Christians are exhorted to fast every Wednesday and Friday.

Fast-forwarding to modern times, at the beginning of the 1960s, the fasting rules for Catholics were very strict compared to today. Abstinence from meat was required on every Friday of the year (unless it happens to be an important feast day, like Christmas, which fell on a Friday last year). Fasting was required of those who were able on the Ember Days, on the eve of great feasts, and on all of the weekdays of Lent.

The bishops of that time decided to greatly lighten this obligation. They didn't do this because they hoped Catholics would only fast on these days; officially, Catholics are "strongly urged" to keep up the traditional practice of doing penance on Fridays throughout the year, particularly by abstaining from meat. Unfortunately, the "fast whenever you want" approach has resulted in most people doing the bare minimum.

Well, it may help to understand that when judaism first formed it was out of many folk stories that were then woven together to create a singular culture to motivate the judean people to "reclaim" their land in the north (Israel). Part of this was to make stories connecting the two peoples (the exodus and conquest of Canaan), but also it was changing the nature of God. Elohist sources seem to favor the northern part of Canaan (Israel), while Jahwist sources favor southern Canaan (Judea). It appears that over time the Jahwist way of thinking overtook the whole of the religion, changing it from the pagan or pseudo pagan Elohism into more modern Judaism by singling out Jahweh as the one true god or the true nature of god. There are a couple of very good reads on the subject, A History of God (which is summarized fairly well by this video, though I'm sure there are other summaries out there.) and The Bible Unearthed (which takes a look more at the cultures that the stories originated in and the archeological evidence we use to determine whether parts of the bible are reliable, in short some of the figures probably existed but nearly the entirety of exodus is unreliable as a history).

Sure thing!

If you want something accessible on a college level that I have used in my courses, I'd recommend The Hebrew Bible for Beginners by Lohr and Kaminsky.

Another magnificent but weightier text that touches directly on source critical issues and the history of scholarly theories is James Kugel's How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now.

Those are both broad surveys for beginners. On the more narrow question of dating and good for someone with a bit of Hebrew background, an important new-ish book is How Old is the Hebrew Bible: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study by Ron Hendel and Jan Joosten. They do a great job of summarizing the current state of the question. It's the closest thing I have to offer as a consensus or mainstream view.

For a more "minimalist" or skeptical view that focuses on the historical origins of biblical narratives, I would recommend beginners take a look at The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein.

Later this summer, I am really interested to see John Barton's forthcoming book A History of the Bible: The Story of the World's Most Influential Book. I haven't seen it, but he's great and it seems like a serious piece of scholarship.

>you imbecile

I can already tell this is going to be fun.

>Jesus has literally ZERO contemporary historical data.

That's not what you asked for. You asked for peer-reviewed arguments for the historical existence of Jesus, of which I said there are thousands, and to which I said you'd have a much more difficult time finding the opposite--- peer reviewed articles and books arguing that Jesus was entirely a myth.

>I’ll wait for those libraries of sources you have.

Where do you want to start?

Probably the best place for you to start is with Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar of on the development of Christianity, and he's also a popular skeptic speaker and writer. In addition to publishing he's written popular books about how many of the books of the Bible were forgeries, and how the belief that Jesus was divine developed in early Christianity, he also wrote an entire book laying out the widely accepted case that Jesus was likely a real historical person, written directly to skeptical lay people like yourself.

If you want a great introduction to the scholarly debate about the historical Jesus, you could start here or here. I also think Dale Allison's work is great critical look at some of the issues at work in the debate. There are lots of historical reconstructions of Jesus' life. Some of the more popular ones like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan tend to sell books to liberal Christian audiences, so I've always thought E.P. Sanders treatment was perferable. I'll spare you the links to scholars who identify as orthodox Christians, like Luke Timothy Johnson or N.T. Wright. It sounded like you specifically wanted more scholarly sources and not popular books, so you could just look at the scholarly journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. Or the Jesus Seminar. Or either of the following Introductions to the New Testament textbooks which are used in secular universities throughout the english speaking world:

Introduction to the New Testament by Mark Allen Powell

Introduction to the New Testament by Bart Ehrman

These are the ones I'm personally most familiar with. There are tons more like Geza Vermes and Amy Jill Levine I haven't read and I'm not as familiar with.

But I'm not telling you anything you wouldn't learn in any basic 101 intro to New Testament Class. The academic consensus is that regardless of what you think about him as a religious figure, it is extremely likely that there was a first century Jew named Jesus who started a faith movement that led to him being crucified. Why do scholars think this? Because by the time Paul started writing his letters 20 years later there was a growing, spreading religious movement that worship a crucified Jew named Jesus as their messiah, and given critical analysis of the texts produced by this movement, some of which are now in the New Testament, there really doesn't exist a coherent argument for the development of this movement that doesn't include the existence of a first century Jew named Jesus who was crucified.

What you are seeking I think would in my opinion be found in Orthodox Christianity.

1. We Orthodox call them Spiritual Fathers. These can be your priest, your confessor or a monk. Usually it is your priest or confessor as they will get to know you very well. The job of a spiritual Father is to help instruct and guide you on your spiritual path towards salvation. He will answer questions, offer advice with life problems and is the person you can talk to when you are troubled.
   
2. We have hesychasm and prayer rules. They help bring spiritual order into our lives so that we can better live out the faith.
   
3. The Orthodox teaching of hell is that at the judgement all souls (saved and unsaved) will experience God's love. A soul which has rejected God will experience God in a dreadful way entirely as a result of his own choice. God will show him his love but because he has cut off himself from him and rejected him he will not welcome that presence.
   
4. The term denominations refers to all the protestant splinter groups which were created by Martin Luther 1500 years after Christ. Apart from those Christianity has many sects such as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts etc. The way you would discover which is the true one is through research. Look at the Church history, which one teaches and practices the same things as the early Church? Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions we have been given. I can only instruct point you towards the Orthodox Church as we were founded by the Apostles and have kept the teachings and traditions they gave us.
   
5. Prayers to saints is not a necessity, we pray to them to ask them to pray for us just like we would other Christians because God is not the god of the dead and of the living. Christ showed us that they are alive at his transfiguration.
   
6. The attitude towards the different sects changes between churches. Some believe anything flies as long as your praise Jesus. Some, like us, believe that there is only one faith that we were instructed to keep, and to change it is to depart from the church.
   
7. With regards to tradition, you will find its fullness in the Orthodox Church. We were instructed to keep it, and so we did.
   
8. KJV is a good translation, but you can also google about which one is the best. Being translations, they all have issues. We Orthodox believe scripture should not be read alone because the reader will come to his own conclusions rather than what was given to us. Scripture is not just the written word but the overall context and teaching.
   
9. At the end of all this, this is but what our church claims. You can only get to the bottom of it through research. I can point you to the Orthodox Church.
   
   
   A good book to read is this.

>Judaism didn't "merge" different gods and goddesses, they rejected them. Christianity merged them in the New Testament, but they eliminated the divinity of the goddess.

The Israelites were polytheistic at first but over time became more monotheistic. You still find traces of polytheism in the bible. In ancient Egyptian religion the creator uses the word or speech to bring everything into existence. This word or speech was called Hu by the Egyptians and was considered a deity. In Genesis you find god creating everything using the word or speech but instead of the word or speech being a god like in ancient Egyptian religion it's just Yahweh. So the Israelites just had Yahweh taking over the roles other gods had in pagan religions. Yahweh also had a Goddess consort called Asherah. This book is about the polytheism of the Israelites.

As for Mary, the idea of a mortal woman being impregnated by a god is something you find in pagan religions. It represents spirit(the god) "impregnating" matter(the woman). Gender in religion/mythology is symbolic for the two forces that the divine had to split itself into in order to "create" life.

>Divine femininity was downplayed due to the subjugation of women. Gender inequality is a feature, not a bug, of Abrahamic religion. Beginning with Adam and Eve, the Old Testament firmly established an ontological foundation for women's second class citizenship: Men were subservient to God, and women were subservient to men. The patriarchal hierarchy was upheld in the New Testament, notably by the treatment of Mary (both Theotokos and Magdalene), the exclusion of certain Gnostic gospels, and the inclusion of misogynist social commentary from Peter and others.

>I agree that the divine isn't male or female like humans. But religion is primarily a tool for social control. A rise in religiosity is always accompanied by the threat of fundamentalism, and all it takes is a couple years of violence and chaos to a century of legal and social progress. As a woman, supporting the resurgence of Christianity would make me complicit in my own dehumanization.

I completely agree with all of this.

The main book is a case for Christ by lee strobel

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0310209307

Then also a book by James white:

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376838107&sr=1-4&keywords=James+white


Now don't get me wrong these guys probably have a agenda to push, but I genuinely think they present a lot of information that can't just be over looked. So many of us don't have any faith strictly because one side presented us with so many examples of why not to based on half truths that we should at least investigate the other sides truths even if they to are only half truths. I know I fit into the line of thought of saying well gosh there is so much info against the bible from so many "experts" how can it be true. The thing is both sides are spinning it how they see fit but my faith has grown in researching the other side instead of just going with popular belief.

u/SwordOfRighteousness touched on this already, but just to drive the point home...There are layers to what you do or do not believe. The top layer is JW doctrine. The second layer is the Bible. The third, foundation layer, is the belief in Jehovah God (or theism, at the very least). You can remove your belief in the top layer, the JW doctrines, and still have belief in the Bible and Jehovah. But if you remove your belief in the Bible itself then you can not retain belief in JW doctrine. So I would suggest starting there. Prove to yourself what the Bible is. How would you do this?

​

To start, I can not recommend highly enough the free online Yale Bible course: Yale Bible Course

​

This is a level of critical Bible study most witnesses are completely unaware even exists. It's not anti-Bible, setting out to disparage it. It simply deconstructs what we know, and what we don't know, about the origins of the Bible itself. Start with the OT course, it's fantastic. And then, read. Read like your life depends on it because, in a way, it does. At least, what kind of life you have depends on it. Books that really helped me:

​

Who Wrote the Bible

The Bible Unearthed

Jesus, Interrupted

​

These aren't some flat-earth type nut jobs spewing non-sense. They are well respected Biblical scholars who have devoted their lives to the Bible. Personally, they destroyed my second layer of belief, and made my views on the top layer almost irrelevant.

Sure, so apart from a lack of reason to accept those extraordinary claims I listed before, I would also defend the statement that we have firm evidence that Christianity is a human invention, a simple product of human culture.

This should not be too outlandish a claim, as even Christians can probably agree that most of the worlds religions are creations of our changing society (after all, Christians probably would disagree that Hinduism, paganism, Nordic, Hellenistic, aboriginal religions were divinely inspired/authored).

By looking back into the origins of Christianity, and the origins of the Judaic system from which it is derived, we can very clearly see changes in religious deities and stories, as the religion began incorporating myths from surrounding areas and as general patterns of beliefs changed. From what we can currently understand, it appears the the origin of Christianity started as a polytheistic pantheon with at least Yahweh, El, Baal and Asherah. It then moved slowly from polytheism to henotheism to monaltry to monotheism, as was relatively common in the Axial Age.

All of this points to the religion not representative of singular divine inspiration, and instead being representative of being a product of human culture, changing along with society.

This is a rather large topic of course, and if you want further reading, I recommend:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
• Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) by John Day
  
• God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith
  
• Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, by Michael S. Heiser, PhD
  
• The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah by Andrew Halladay
  
• Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel By David Steinberg
  
• The evolution of God

First of all, it is not up to you to 'disprove' the bible, though it would be child's work to find numerous contradictions and many many flaws. HE is the one that is saying the bible is true. How does he know that it is true? Because the bible says so? This is clearly circular reasoning. You could as easily say the Qu'ran is true because the Qu'ran say it is true. The only reason he isn't saying that is because (presumably) he was brought up on Christianity and not Islam. Had he grown up in Saudi Arabia, there's a pretty damn good chance he would be a Muslim.

Now, as for disproving the bible, you could point out numerous contradictions between the bible itself, point out claims the bible makes about how the world works that are clearly flawed, or point out the great many immoral actions god takes in the bible. Now, depending on his brand of Christianity, he might come back with different arguments.

Examples: That's supposed to be interpreted differently. That verse is anecdotal. This is not meant to be taken literally. The Old Testament is to be ignored(if he does this, you can point out Matthew 5:17-20). God is mysterious and the paragon of morality, therefore everything he does is automatically moral.

It is amazing the different ways people can dismiss the gaping holes in their beliefs.

I think the most efficient way to 'disprove' the bible is to simply point out how it has changed throughout history. Remember, we didn't always have the printing press, it is a relatively new technology. The bible was copied through through humans copying it by hand... humans who of course, made a mistake here and there... and this has happened since the conception of the bible. HUNDREDS of generations, each one hand-copying the bible, making mistakes... adding things that were originally not there, or taking away some things. Not to mention translations, which created a slew of new flaws. If you want to go into detail on the history of the bible and how it has changed throughout history, read Misquoting Jesus: The story of who changed the bible and why.

In the end though, the strongest argument is that there is no reason to believe there is a god, MUCH LESS a personal god who is interested in what we do, answers prayers, sent a 'son' to sacrifice himself for humanity and demands worship.

I am not discriminating against Christians by describing what the followers do. I am not denying them services, freedoms, or liberties. If I tried to do that, it would deny the liberties that I enjoy as well. There are major Christian organizations (AFA, AIG, FocusOnTheFamily, LivingWaters, Pat Robertson, etc...) that are perfect examples of what I'm describing. Yes it's obvious that not all Christians do this but I am upset by those that do because they believe it's in Yahweh's best interests.

Anthropologists and archaeologists generally believe the Israelites were once part of the Canaanites and often continued sharing culture and beliefs. There is a lot written on the subject in ancient anthropology in books that can present the findings better than me. I had assumed you already had heard about where Yahweh likely originated, just like the borrowed Sumerian & Babylonian flood and creation myths in the Bible, [Yahweh in the bible also has origins elsewhere.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33hIs38-NPE) There are resources explaining the [deities of Canaan and their origins.] (http://amzn.com/080283972X) These might be a little more advanced for armchair anthropologists, but they are informative.

/u/unheeding has made an excellent suggestion. I really like how Macullough weaves in the Israelite history as essential to understanding the Christian history. If I might widen the variety here, however, if by only a little bit:

Justo Gonzalez is fantastic. He has a two volume, recently re-edited series on the history of Christianity called The Story of Christianity. Here's Vol. 1 and Vol. 2

Gonzalez also has a short book that focuses on the history of Christianity through the development of doctrines called A Concise History of Christian Doctrine which, as far as I can gather is a much condensed version of the another three volume set that I've never read. Gonzalez is fun, approachable, and honestly a really good read.

I am also in the middle of Christianity: A Social and Cultural History and it is quite good so far, though I've not gotten into it quite so much as Gonzalez.

I am also in the middle of an Old Testament history book for my Hebrew Bible course called Understanding the Old Testament which has a really exciting philosophy of doing history and I'm really into it. This book has me at least as excited as Gonzalez, but Anderson's approach is a very responsible one which still evokes power and mystery revolving around the development of the Hebrew canon as well as those things that we simply cannot know, even if we can try to take a really good shot at it.

I hope this helps.

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your interest and hope that you find the answers to your questions. If not, there's plenty of people on this sub that would be happy to help.

In terms of shedding light, there are a number of non-canonical accounts of Jesus, even early ones that were not included into the canon. Many give vastly different accounts of Jesus' nature and teachings, which ultimately is one of the reasons they became rejected, along with dating of when they were written, who by, integrity of the teachings, etc. I think the Didache is a little misrepresented though, many of our early Church fathers were not only aware of it, but clearly reference it.

Ultimately, though our early accounts of Jesus do offer a divine incarnation from the get go, our earliest Gospel, Mark includes many such references as do our earliest writings, the epistles of Paul, hence why the notion of Jesus as merely a human is widely rejected (though there some who self-identify as Christian and might accept a human-only Jesus, this wouldn't be considered orthodox though).

If looking into the historical evidence and various accounts of Jesus as human as well as further reading material you might be better poking your head into /r/AcademicBiblical. You could also look into the companion books How Jesus became God and How God became Jesus to get a good grasp for arguments on both sides.

Peace be upon you!

I'd suggest you read The Bible Unearthed, a book that's mentioned a lot around here due to how good it is. Basically, it summarizes all that we know about the Biblical period (pre-Exile) through peer-reviewed archaeology, by archaeologists.

The authors spend a great deal of time with the Exodus, and show that there is no time period where you can fit that narrative in with the existing evidence. Also no evidence for the mass of Hebrew slaves in the region, no pharaoh which fits, and the (huge) unlikelihood for the escape story, given the loyalties of the territories they were passing through.

From there they spend a large amount of time showing how the 40 years could not have happened as described, and that the conquering of Canaan simply did not happen. The modern archaeological consensus, it seems, considers Judaism to have grown up out of Canaan itself instead of being an invader.

They spend some more time dismantling most of the Biblical picture of the united kingdom, the north vs. south kingdom stories, and a host of other things.

To summarize their summary: While there are a great many historically accurate things in the Bible, the grand narratives pre-Exile are not reliable historical accountings of what evidence shows happened. Post-Exile (when the books were being written pretty much contemporarily), the Bible is far more reliable when it comes to historical claims.

>Or is the burden of proof on Christianity to prove it did?

I try not to pull out that line. First, it's often insulting/polarizing. I'm (usually) interested in conversations and not challenging people or spouting buzz-phrases. Were I to use it, it would deal with the claims that Christianity makes which are not testable via science of one sort or another. This is an area which is eminently testable, and in which there is huge amounts of active research.

(If you want to get an idea for that book, you can find PDFs of it (full text) via Google easily, and see if the $4 plus shipping seems worth it).

I can recommend some books.

For general theology:

• Being, Consciousness, and Bliss by David Bentley Hart
  
  
• On the Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius
  
  
• This argument and this other argument, which are some of the best out there for God's existence
  
  
• Summa Theologica by Aquinas
  
  
• The Last Superstition by Ed Fesser
  
  For living a Christian life:
  
  
• Way of the Pilgram
  
• The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa
  
• Beginning to Pray by Anthony Bloom
  
  
• The Brothers Karamozov
  
  
• Centuries of Mediations by Thomas Trahearne
  
  For adjudicating between denominations:
  
  
• The Orthodox Way by Timothy Ware
  
  
• The Story of Christianity by David Bentley Hart
  
  
  Some essays and blogs:
  
  
• A blog, Glory to God for All Things
  
  
• Some essays, "Christ and Nothing", "Gods and Gopniks", "Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark", and "Why Don't We Believe in Fairies"
  
  
  Do you need a denomination? Yes. All truths cannot be equally valid; therefore, some denominations must be closer to the truth than others. In the end, Christ teaches that the Church will be preserved throughout history. The question to answer for yourself is: what is the true Church? Obviously, I'm Eastern Orthodox and am convinced my Church is the fullest expression of Christianity, so read my comment as being spoken by a person from a particular group who has his own biases. Feel free to check out Orthodox Christianity if you start looking our way.
  
  Edited

Here is an article detailing several early church fathers and their thoughts on Mary.

>St. Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). (9) By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St. Ambrose, as well as by St. Epiphanius. (10)
>
>As already referred to, the most complete ancient prayer to the Blessed Mother historically preserved is the Sub Tuum Praesidium (250 A.D.):
>
>We fly to your patronage,O holy Mother of God,despise not our petitionsin our necessities,but deliver us from all dangers.O ever glorious and blessed Virgin.

That prayer is what the Memorare is based on.

Here is an article on early church fathers and why they do ask saints for intercession. They talk about praying with the saints, and that it is good.

Here is an article detailing quotes demonstrating the early church fathers knew celibacy was better, especially for priests!

>St. Epiphanius
>
>Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the diaconate, the priesthood, or the episcopate, no nor even to the subdiaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to (Panarion [A.D. 376]).

Celibacy is better, just like Paul says.

I recommend reading more of the early church fathers to get a better understanding of why their faith and these things are so Catholic. These sites all list citations you can chase down, but maybe you would also be interested in this book and this book?

I use the Jordanville prayer book, which is similar in feel to the HTM. My sense is it's less elegant than HTM at its best, but also less uneven. It's still kind of idiosyncratic, but I've learned to like it. This has become the standard prayer book, among Orthodox converts who feel the need for a standard prayer book :-)

Fr Ephrem Lash has published a modern-English edition of the usual daily prayers. He's a highly-educated British priestmonk, with a style that's modern but more refined than most chatty modern English Orthodox texts. Here's his edition for sale at Amazon. It's not very cheap, and I haven't read it - but to give you a taste of his style, here's his website, and here's his translation of Small Compline.

More versions here...

Incidentally, about all the faux retro-English: Bishop Kallistos (Ware) and Bishop Basil (Essey) have both proven very good at writing retro-English that's understandable, consistent, and doesn't get in the way of the sense of the text - while a number of Greek, Arab and Russian clergy and scholars have tried their hands at translation into English (modern and retro) and produced texts that are either impenetrable or just silly. Given the current state of canonical oddness here in Barbarian Territory, and the continuing influx of Protestants-In-Recovery with strong opinions, I don't expect an agreed-upon, high-quality body of translations in ordinary unaffected English to coalesce in my lifetime.

I keep reminding myself to be grateful: Only a generation ago, there were almost no English Orthodox materials to be had. You could read your Bible, follow the basic services from Hapgood and Orloff, and (from 1963) read The Orthodox Church and that was about it in English, until the 1980s or so. So even if it's an esthetic trial, I remind myself the current selection of awkwardly-translated material is still an embarrassment of riches comapred to what young Timothy (Bp. Kallistos) Ware or Eugene (Fr Seraphim) Rose had available to them :-)

My younger teenage self liked this one: King Arthur by Roger Lancelyn Green. I simultaeously found this book and a tape of Led Zeppelin's greatest hits. They synced up incredibly well. "Battle of Evermore" especially, although Lord of the Rings probably fits that song best.


What kind of books are you interested in?


An idea! -> You might get some awesome ideas and do some great exJW awareness by posting this question over at /r/books. Explaining you were in a religion that controlled what you could read and think...the members over there might get a kick out of helping you with suggestions!

[edit] Oooh, you wanted useful books. Sorry. I think I badly wanted to reread the King Arthur book (just watched Excaliber again on HBO/Netflix), so I didn't pay attention to the word "useful". Sorry!


The Bible Unearthed was fascinating.

>Well, tell me how awesome I am.

Well, apparently your tush can take a kicking and keep on ticking! That's pretty awesome.

Redditing at work is AWESOME! if raffle picks me, I'd like this please!, or if it's too much, a gift card or whatever strikes your fancy off my WL. I'll be happy regardless! :D

Not everyone agrees with Goffart, his methodology or his conclusions, but everyone has to take them into account. I personally think he is great (and I think most historians fall on the positive side), but even if I disagreed, his book would still be on my "must-read" list.

Being able to distinguish a real history book from one for a general audience is something too many academics take for granted and we forget that it's really not an obvious distinction to many people. General guidelines, definitely not to be followed 100%: is the author a working academic or is he more of a journalist looking for a good story? If not an academic, has he or she written on this area before or do they write on topics all over the map? Is the press known for academic books or popular books? (Sadly) is the book very expensive or is it actually affordable?! Mention it to an actual academic and see if he turns his nose up at it and sneers condescendingly (I'm waiting for someone to ask me about this book so I can give that response. I've been practicing my sneer in the mirror). Or, better yet, ask reddit!

There's many many contradictions in the Bible, for example right away there's the start of Genesis, two different creation accounts, two different flood accounts, if you read the NT side by side, it agrees on almost nothing about Jesus' life or death. These are just off the top of my head, but you can go through (probably) all of it here.

You might want to hop over to /r/AcademicBiblical, or specifically, their wiki for some interesting in-depth questions and answers. You can also ask them about stuff that's not clear to you, just keep it non-religion, they deal with history of and texts about religion, not beliefs and feelings. They are good for when you don't believe something was translated correctly or stuff like that though.

If you want books, The Bible Unearthed will tear the whole OT pretty much to pieces. For NT, read something from Bart Ehrman, and the Jesus Wars, which is shamelessly entertaining Game of Thrones style description on how people decided what the Bible will be like. Ikr, I wasn't expecting it to be entertaining either.

That's likely not your problem though. The Demon Haunted World suggested below will definitely help with vague bad feelings of "what if", also good for when you watched a particularly disturbing horror movie and are now carrying a gun and holy water everywhere. It's in big part about UFOs though, lol.

You might want to read up on other religions, current or dead ones, or cults and the like. It helps put Christianity into perspective, when you see that while it's huge today, people are/were just as convinced about other ones, to the point where they sacrificed their own children (Abraham, anyone?) to gods. I mean, stuff like this.

But first and foremost, find a therapist. If you have some mental health issues, even if you find definite proof of Christianity being false, you'll just find something else to stress about.

>And from our perspective, fear should never be a part of love but maybe in God’s fucked up world somehow it is.

That's how I started my own deconversion, when reading the Bible for the first time for Confirmation. By the time I got to the church, I was pretty much a Satanist, still believing God existed, but also that he was evil, and so we should join the other side for some chance of defeating him. Took me a few years to realize the whole thing was just mythology with a compelling story but no better proof of being true than Harry Potter. I never was so anxious about it though.

Cool, thanks; this does look interesting. But I repeat, can you give me a link to a single credible book that supports what you've said here? One you've actually read, I mean.

I ask because this topic interests me, and I can't figure out where you're getting your information. I mean, I've seen Zeitgeist and The God Who Wasn't There, and a lot of what you claim seems to be straight out of those disreputable sources.

One small example, the Osiris connection. No credible historian takes that seriously in the way you claim. They do, however, see evidence that Egyptian mythology affected Christology through the Johannine tradition, which appears to have come out of Alexandria. And yet when I mentioned that and said it's too late to be the origin of the crucifiction story you claimed I was completely off topic! It's like you weren't aware of it at all!

Further, to make that Osiris mistake you would have to be completely ignorant about the timeline associated with Christianity's development. For example, that the divinity Christology is much later than that associated with his crucifixion. Which REALLY makes me wonder where the hell you're getting your information, lol!

Just to make sure you understand what I'm asking for: Bart Ehrman did a decent job of summarizing the mainstream position on Jesus in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0062206443

Do you have something similar or better than you could recommend from a mythist position? That you've actually read, remember.

EDIT: BTW, the link you sent me? It's making a big deal about how this is the first peer reviewed and university published book supporting the mythist position in over 50 years. So dude, do you fucking understand that this directly supports what I was saying!? If and when the mythist position becomes dominant I will be HAPPY to change my mind. If you still think my accepting scientific consensus is a problem then please kindly fuck off.

If you're very new to OT biblical analysis, as a fellow lay person, and even though it's not intended to be a 2 Kings analysis per se, I highly recommend Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

2 Kings is sort of the linchpin for OT biblical archaeology. Virtually all the OT texts preceding 2 Kings appear to have been written (or at least redacted) at some point during the periods of the monarchies we read about in 2 Kings. So when reading this text in particular, you have to come at it with two questions in mind:

1. What events written here actually happened (or at least sort of happened like the way they're told here)?
   
2. Who wrote this, and when?
   
   These topics are typically in tension when you're trying to analyze the texts using the modern textual-archaeological hybrid approach. What we know from the archaeological record may suggest a reason that a story was told in a certain way--emphasis on one person may mean that the story was told by a political or social supported of that person's family. And what we read in the texts can help us fit pieces of the archaeological record together, or even fill holes. As you can imagine, some people give more credence to the biblical record as a factual record, while others sort of acknowledge it only when it coincides with the archaeology. But even those folks will then still try to fit the author into the historical context, again basing their understanding of the author's context on the archaeological record.
   
   In 2 Kings especially, this tension plays with what you're reading, because the historical context of the author is much closer to the context of the story itself (at least more closely than, say, the context of the author/redactor of Judges vis a vis the context of Judges). It makes it a little difficult to know where to begin; that's certainly something I encountered when I started learning about this kind of textual analysis. What I liked about Finkelstein and Silverman's book is that it does a bit of both: there is a broad, comprehensive historical context for what we know happened, and what may-or-may-not have happened, for the stories relayed in 2 Kings (especially the latter end of it), with a constant referencing back to the archaeology that supports what we know (and don't). And then there is discussion of the context and motivations of the author(s) of the texts, fitting those people (whoever they were) into the political and social movements of the time. It's a juggling act, but for me the narrative of this book was strong enough to carry me through, and allow for understanding how both biblical text and biblical author fit into their times.
   
   The caveat to this recommendation is that you should know at the outset that Finkelstein's views are by no means universally accepted. He is an ardent minimalist, and his evolving views of the origins of Benjamin and Judah and on what facts the Saul-David stories were based on have continued to be challenged. But as an introduction to the major topics affecting the study of that period, and of the major texts written in and/or about that period (primarily 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles), I found this book to be engaging and educating.

Sweet. Pretty much any book by Ehrman is super easy to read. He's an amazing author. My two favorites by him are Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee if you feel like exploring him further.

Please let me know if you or your mother have any questions. I love discussing these topics.

Thanks!

No, I'm not Muslim. I would probably call myself a Christian Deist.
Well, I don't think they Bible is the inerrent word of God, here is a good series of video's that shows why:

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 1/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 2/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 3/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 4/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 5/10

Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus 6/10

The remaining for videos are on youtube, but they are just Q&A. Also, he has a very good book that talks about the problem of determining what the Bible originally says, you can get it here: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4150144, I mean here! Here, here, here! The book is a balanced account of how the modern Bible came to be, without trying to push you theologically.


So I cant' take the Bible's word on Jesus's divinity. It has also always been my position that God doesn't suspend the laws of nature even in the performance of miracles. So if God parted the Red Sea, for instance, it was via the gravity of the moon. And if God wanted to come visit us he would cause a physical person to exist in the natural course of history to say and do the things he would. A person that is causally determined by the universe cannot be God because God determined the course of the universe based on it's initial conditions. However it is at least possible for someone to be an agent of God. I suppose you would back up such a claim of agency by performing miracles that world require knowledge that only such an agent would have (but the Bible alone can't be relied on to show that Jesus did that either). Also there were early Christians that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they were snuffed out by the proto-orthodoxy of the church.

The question then is did the resurrection at least occur? Well, we can't take the Bible on it's word on it, so how could we at least make it more probable to have happened? I would say that if we could find extra biblical historical evidence that people who claimed to be eye witnesses of the risen Christ were willing to die for that belief, it would at least be at bit likely. The one piece of evidence along those lines is this, by Josephus except the "who was called Christ was probably and addition, and the passage makes more sense if James was the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus. So basically, beyond the Bible I can't find any proof that there really were martyrs of the risen Christ.


I have no problem with the Bible as evidence, but look at it this way. If your friend sends you a postcard that says he went to Jerusalem and saw a teacher give a lecture series, I'll believe him. If I receive an anonymous letter (since the gospels are all anonymous) that says the writer heard that a teacher rose from the dead at the end of his lectures--I'm gonna need a little more corroboration. Extraordinary claims need more than paltry evidence.

In contrast, the Eastern Churches claim to maintain an unbroken, apostolic Faith that can be traced directly back to the Apostles and Early Church. As far as we're concerned, we don't come from the Early Church, we are the Early Church.

I've tried to find a comprehensive online source, but none of them explain it as well or as thoroughly as I'm sure you'd like. If you would like a comprehensive and thorough argument for the point I just made, I highly recommend that you find a copy of The Orthodox Church. It's inexpensive, especially on Kindle. It's not meant to convince or convert people, just to lay out our history and what we believe, so that others can form their own, more informed, opinions.

It's a fantastic read :)

The two best things:

1. Read the NT with an excellent commentary. My favorite is the Orthodox Study Bible, and it will give you a much more traditional perspective on NT passages.
   
2. Read The Apostolic Fathers. These are the writings of the earliest Christians right after the NT: so something like 70 CE - 150 CE. These are the people who would have known the apostles. It's fascinating what Christianity looks like from their perspective. (Hint: at least to my mind, not Mormonism.) What I see is a sort of proto-Orthodoxy or proto-Catholicism. And some of the letters are just lovely. (Some are strange.)
   
   I"m planning to read some other history book soon, happy to update when I decide on which ones.

I'm Irish, and although my family strongly identifies with our Irish roots, I've always been a bit embarrassed by the way we celebrate our alcoholism. I like my drinks too, but jokes like,
"Why did God invent whiskey?"
"So the Irish wouldn't rule the world"

It's always embarrassed me a bit. Then I read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" and it made me proud to know that the Irish really had a big role in saving western civilization from losing more of our accumulated knowledge than we already had at the end of the dark ages.

Now I love the joke:
"Do you know what I'd be if I wasn't Irish?"
"Bloody ashamed of me-self."

Whoa there! This might be an unpopular opinion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, yes, I think it's more of a problem when people claim that the Bible is perfect and literally the word of God, that there are no contradictions, etc. It's really ugly the way people use it to justify all manner of bigotry. And I do have experience there -- I went to a Southern Baptist school for 7 years.

On the other hand! As an English major and just general lover of literature, I think much of the Bible is so beautiful! The myths, the poetry... Not to mention the history. Not even necessarily the history actually written in it (though there is something to some of it), but what we can learn about who wrote it and when and why (the answer is... complicated; I highly recommend How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman to anyone interested in that), what they believed, how they lived... Honestly, I find it much more interesting as a human work of literature than as a holy text.

I definitely recommend that you start reading /r/exmormon/ if you aren't already. And here is the recommended reading list for that sub.

I also recommend the following:

• God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens; especially the Audible version, which is read by the author and he has a great reading voice.
  
• Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman; really anything by Dr. Ehrman is great, but this one is a good place to start. He also has an interesting back story that he shares in just about every book.
  
• The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. Finkelstein is one of the top archaeologists living in Israel today, and what he has to say casts a lot of doubt on some of the most important Bible stories. (There's a 90 minute video here, if you would prefer)
  
• A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Where did the idea of the Jewish deity come from, and how did it develop? (There's a 15 minute summary video here if you prefer)
  
  Should be plenty to get you started. :)

Many instances in which Jesus is referred to as actually being God or of divine origin in the bible were antiadoptionistic changes made to the texts by theologians in order to discredit a group best described as messianic Jews (the Ebionites). They believed that he was born via the natural union of Joseph and Mary, and that he was given a special calling by God that invested him with divinity only after his birth.

By this theology Jesus did not preexist creation and was truly a normal human being until after his crucifixion. The prevailing Christian groups who opposed this wen to extreme measures to wipe the group out, especially because they demanded that all Christians would also have to be Jews, as Jesus was, and this required circumcision and kosher eating practices: two things not very popular in the classical Roman empire.

See these excellent books for extensive details about Biblical alterations and pre-orthodox Christianity:

Misquoting Jesus

Lost Christianities

It's How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Similar titles include How the Irish Saved Civilization, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. None of them are by the same author, but they're all interesting historical books with similar titles (How some great culture did great things that built what we have now), none the less.

I would love to find similar titles about other countries, cultures, and civilizations. They're always so interesting!

These are some of the better books I've accumulated in school:

• An Introduction to the New Testament - Raymond Brown. Exactly what the title says.
  
  
• The Early Church - Henry Chadwick. This is more of a historical overview of the development of the Church, etc.
  
  
• The Shape of Catholic Theology - Aiden Nichols. This book is kind of a dense read. Not gonna lie.
  
  
• At the Origin of the Christian Claim - Luigi Giussani.
  
  
• The Craft of Theology - Avery Dulles.
  
  
• The Theology of the Church - Charles Jornet. - This one is about ecclesiology, or the structure of the Church.
  
  
• Early Christian Fathers -Cyril Richardson. Includes primary sources like letters and homilies.
  
  
• The Trinitarian Crontroversy - William Rusch. Very good history of early heresies, like Arianism and Nestorianism, and how they pushed the Church to develop the Creed.
  
  
• Called to Communion - Joseph Ratzinger.
  
  
• Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man - Henri de Lubac. This book is fantastic!
  
  
• The Meaning of Tradition - Yves Congar.
  
  
• Introduction to Moral Theology - Romanus Cessario.
  
  
• The Major Works -Anselm of Canterbury. Nice collection, see especially: Cur Deus Homo.
  
  
• On the Incarnation - Ignatius of Antioch. I LOVED this one!
  
  
• Credo for Today - Joseph Ratzinger. Basically anything by Ratzinger.

Linking to wikipedia but it has references to the authors / historians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_contemporary_historians

"On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography." - Motzki

By sources he means Islamic sources.

It's like you can't accept the Bush or Trump (or Clinton) narratives as true without going to third parties / other means of verifying what happened and what's true.

Similar wikipedia link about the Exodus that links to other primary sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

Here's a book by archaeologists about the exodus
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136

Oh man. Where do I begin?

It started with Edward Feser. Then Aquinas.

I recently compiled my 'short list' of books that were foundational for a Master's:

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764807188/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925995X/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Then go here:

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Vol-Church-Reformation/dp/006185588X

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061855898/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T5D86TV1MTCSQAYZ4GHR

G.K. Chesterton is always a good supplement (Heretics and Orthodoxy):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ALKPW4S/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Bible Study:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0385247672/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477868333&sr=1-1&keywords=raymond+brown

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585169420/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809147807/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

(Jewish perspective on NT): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297709/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

After you've gotten through these (or maybe interspersed), get into de Chardin -- but be careful, because he toes the line into heresy with the noosphere stuff.

Then, start reading the theoretical physicist priests in our faith, Stanley Jaki, for example.

And this. This.

Finally, try to muddle through Spitzer. These guys have more smarts in their little finger than I will ever have.

Edit: I refreshed the thread and saw that you've already found Feser. Excellent. Are you familiar with John C. Wright as well? Sci-fi-writer-former-atheist-now-traditionalist-Catholic.

I'm interested in any science + metaphysics books you've come across too. . .

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.

What you have heard is a likely combination of misinformation, misunderstandings, and out of context information with a dash of truth thrown in for believability (plus some stuff that so weird you can't make it up). I suggest you start with one of these books (in order of objectivity):

• The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion by Dr. Hugh Urban. This one is by a religious studies professor and is by far the most objective. He covers the history of the church, its basic beliefs and practices, and controversies and does an amazing job of putting things into context.
  
  
• Going Clear by Lawrence Wright. This guy is a journalist and did a pretty good job of staying objective. He chose some of the more sensationalist topics I think but still covered them more-or-less fairly. I was actually surprised that this book was more objective than I was expecting.
  
  
• Inside Scientology by Janet Reitman. Another journalist's take on Scientology. Reitman was a bit heavier on the sensationalist stuff and didn't quite "get" the context for some aspects of Scientology but she still did a pretty good job.
  
  > allows it's members to attack critics
  
  The video you probably saw recently isn't attacking a "critic". While I don't believe he should be harassed at all, this is a guy who was a top executive that left, wrote some books that makes the rest of top management looks like total assholes, and basically wants to reform the whole movement from the outside. Normal critics, members, and ex-members don't get treated like this. No one is going to knock on your door for posting critical stuff on reddit, for example.
  
  > No one person's religion is "the right way"
  
  This is one of Scientology's core moral values - "Respect the Religious Beliefs of Others"
  
  > the rich are going to get more rich in this religion
  
  not really, not many people are making a lot of money from it even toward the top. It's mostly going into bank accounts, real estate, buildings, improvements of services, and other churchy things. The one guy at the very top lives a pretty CEO-like lifestyle but I doubt many others are getting rich other than the organization itself - and I'd argue that even it isn't super rich. Things like the setup ot Bridge Publications, the church's publishing arm, cost a huge amount of money.
  
  > put those funds back into the fucking community, instead of wasting it on new churches, make new homes and schools for the poor
  
  Then donate to organizations that build homes and schools instead of a church. The aims of a church are to further the spread the religion. Churches that build schools and houses are usually doing so with spreading their religion as their real agenda. There are plenty of secular non-profit organizations that build homes and schools for the poor as their primary concern that tend to be much better at it.
  
  Its also worth pointing out that donations to the Church of Scientology are typically not outright donations. They are almost always for some service or material good, such as a book or lecture series on CD. There isn't really a concept of 'tithing' in Scientology and indeed the idea of getting something directly back when you give someone money is kind of part of the culture of the church.

Sure! Most of what I learned wasn't in a class. College/seminary is super overrated outside of something to put on a resume imo (unless you want to get ordained).

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years REALLY good overview book.

The Early Church is really good. Might be a bit dry? But good information.

Christianizing the Roman Empire was pretty interesting and helpful.

Popular Religion in Late Saxon England is as cool as it sounds. My main complaint is that after chapter 3, she essentially just keeps repeating her thesis was more, similar, examples. Very good first 3 chapters tho!

Sayings of the Desert Fathers is good. Sometimes very odd, but at the least interesting.

Augustine's Confessions a must read for many reasons.

On the Holy Spirit can be dry and repetitive at points, but is really good.

Essentially any primary source (i.e. something an author actually wrote, not what someone wrote about them) is great to read. Look for stuff by Augustine, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Maximus the Confessor, Aquinas, Lombard, Vermigli, Luther, Calvin, etc.

Not OP, but audible might have Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. Some of her other books touch on Gnosticism as well.

If you like podcasts, The Secret History of Western Esotericism, has a few episodes on Gnosticism, although the whole podcast is really interesting. History of the Papacy also discusses Gnosticism in the context of the church's history. In Our Time also has an episode. Links for the others in my academic podcast/free uni class list.

You might also ask for recommendations in r/AskBibleScholars or r/academicbiblical.

Edit: just noticed you were looking for old sects in general. In that case, you'll find a lot in the list I linked — it's what got me interested in the historical criticism of Christianity in the first place. :) I'd also suggest Christianity: The First 3,000 Years. It's pretty popular, so there might be an audiobook. Iirc there's also a documentary.

Well yes, Joseph Smith was hated as a con-man, and actually killed by an angry mob. Many religions started in very shady circumstances. It's an interesting field to read about. I recently finished Going Clear, about Scientology. The documentary is also fantastic, though the book of course has much more detail. Under the Banner of Heaven touches on the early history of Mormonism, and is a great book. I'm sure there are more authoritative books on Mormonism, but Krakauer is a great writer and that happens to be the book I read.

Good luck in getting religious believers to see the beginnings of their own religion in modern-day prophets. Generally they just don't look too closely at the beginnings of their religion, or if they do, they write off the weird or disreputable parts as people trying to slander the truth. Religion has ample coping mechanisms, and digging critically into the darker bits will get you shunned by your faith community.

In KJV, John 14:14 leaves out praying to him. He instructs them to pray in his name, but not to pray to him. in e.g. NASB he says: "f you ask Me anything in My name".

The KJV really doesn't leave anything out as much as it's just a different translation from a different time that used the manuscripts that they had available 400 years ago. I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of King James Only Controversy by James White. It goes into detail about all of this. He is a very skilled teologian.

I wish you the best in your journey, whether you stick with the KJV or not. The most important thing is that we follow Jesus Christ and actually read his word. :)

Welcome! We believe that the Orthodox Church is the original Church founded by Jesus Christ, yes. The best way to get a good idea of what Orthodoxy is about is to visit a local parish near you, but here are some books that I would recommend:

The Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Way

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Know the Faith

On the topic of visiting a local parish - do you live in the US? If so, there is a great online search engine to help you locate nearby Orthodox churches.

A few book suggestions you might not get elsewhere:

The Pre-Nicene New Testament by Robert M. Price — a fresh translation of the New Testament plus twenty-seven other early Christian documents and apocrypha.

Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman — a more popular-level discussion of early Christian texts (but does not include the texts themselves).

The Routledge Companion to Early Christian Thought — seems comprehensive, but I haven't read it yet. It's rather expensive.

One Biblical scholar and author who is very popular among Mormons (though she is not one) is Margaret Barker. Her focus is on the influence of temple theology and Jewish polytheism in the formation of Christianity. Her books include The Great Angel and The Great High Priest. They are scholarly reading and might be difficult for the casual reader to follow.

If you listen to podcasts, Robert Price ("the Bible Geek") and Mark Goodacre both have popular podcasts on the New Testament and early Christianity. The former was a Jesus Seminar member and has some fairly radical views; the latter is a more conservative evangelical.

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.

>I would like to respond, but I am not sure I follow your logic. I believe now you are referring to the dependability of primary sources, and how the individuals who created those sources employed speculation

I'm glad that's cleared up.

Yes, that's what I was referring to since my original comment. In my original response to you I believed you were responding to the top comment.

If we recognize that there's subjectivity within the sources, I would argue that it's inherently speculation when analyzing them. While not pure speculation, I don't believe it's accurate to say that there's firm evidence to support all analysis of the subjectivity within records. And analyzing the subjectivity is part of historical analysis, is it not?

edit: And I do recognize the importance of noting when and where the historian feels they have crossed the gray area from "firm" to "not quite firm" evidence. For example, in Zealot by Reza Aslan, while it's interpretation - I would argue it's all firm evidence, with little/no speculation. However, I do believe that part of historical analysis is speculation to an extent - and that's not entirely bad.

The Apostolic Fathers by Michael Holmes is what you want. It contains all of the earliest extra-Biblical writings. The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. It's all in there. There are two versions. The one I have has Greek on one page with the English translation on the facing page. If you know (or have aspirations of learning) a little Greek, get that one. Otherwise there is also a English only version..

No Kindle edition that I can see. If "free on kindle" is important, you can get Lightfoot's translation for free from CCEL. PDF and plaintext only, but calibre can solve that. The Holmes edition is in my opinion much superior, but free is free.

CCEL also has Schaff's Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series. That will give you more than you'll ever want to read.

Paging /u/tbown for more recommendations.