Op, since my comment is long, I'll make it into a few parts.

1/3

.
.
.
.
.

First, I will like to thank you for resoponding to my comment, and waiting later on for my answer.

> Honestly, not a big fan of Wayne Grudem. Apart from his Systematic Theology that revitalise millennial's fervour and passion upon Calvinistic theory of salvation (man can only be saved by God's effort alone), I don't really have high regard on his other views (but probably this is coming from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective). I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.

Likewise. I’m not aware of it [Systematic Theology] being overly controversial, but Grudem himself has been controversial lately by espousing unorthodox beliefs that God the Son is eternally submissive to God the Father, making many who read his works turn away from it- ourselves included.

Onto Grudem's work:

Yes, I think there is something inherently wrong with the idea of systematic theology.

Allow me to state first that I have great respect for many of the Church’s systematic theologians. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind. That guy was a stud. Augustine, Barth-1 Erasmus, Origen, Tillich, all make my list of “dudes I respect” (hrm…no women here…sad), and all engaged in certain systematic pursuits. I think there’s a lot to be said for systematic theology, but I do have a problem with it: too often it smacks of proof-texting, ignorance of context and genre and other literary concerns, and the inability to give the other side a fair shake annoys me to no end.

Perhaps no well-reviewed work of systematic theology annoys me more than Wayne Grudem’s aptly titled Systematic Theology. Grudem goes about creating his system by the aforementioned proof-texting route without paying much attention to the context. What is laudable about his book is also what is condemnable: Grudem’s conciseness. The book is so concise, in fact, that Grudem didn’t find room to offer any serious reflection on Scripture. There is a reason that Barth had to stretch Church Dogmatics out into 13 volumes while only covering a few of the very large categories-2 — because careful theology requires careful exegesis. Of course, to criticize Grudem for this is to ignore what he’s trying to do. Grudem’s aims were accessibility — Systematic Theology prefers to live on the bookshelves of lay people rather than professional clergy with an eye toward serious theological reflection. I get that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make it less frustrating.3

So, here’s the thing. I’d rather take a cue from the greatest theologian of the 20th century (Mr. Barth), and focus on the paradox here. To me, what is most interesting and compelling about Christianity are the paradoxes. For example, Jesus Christ himself represents the most incredible paradox: God and Man in one. Serious reflection on this idea requires pages and pages and pages of thought to work out.

Another example of a paradox is systematic theology itself. Here we have a human attempting to systematize, categorize, and make easily referenced that which defies and even denies systematization. As Paul says in 1 Cor 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly…” Sure, we understand some attributes of God. We can offer some kind of mental assent to God’s infinitude and the paradoxes inherent within (e.g., love and justice | eternal and temporal | etc.). But, at the end of the day, we only have a faint impression of his fullness. The best Christian thinkers are like Monet in his later periods, stricken with cataracts that alter his perception of color — we are painting a half-blind impression of the fullness of God.

So what’s wrong with systematic theology?

Infinitude defies finite system.

But, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try…

For example:

I am all for democracy-seeing that I live in a coountry that has its principles founded upon democracy. No matter how much I detest Grudem's ideals, there are some I support:

Wayne Grudem in Politics-According to the Bible, says that the Bible supports some kind of democracy.

> The Bible gives indirect but significant support to the idea that government should be chosen by the people (some kind of democracy)

> (1)The equality of all people in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 9:6; James 3:9)

> (2) Accountability of rulers to the people helps prevent a misuse of their power.

> (3) If government is to serve for the benefit of the people (Rom. 13:4), the government does not exist ultimately for the good of the king or the good of the emperor or the good of the ruling council, but for the good of the people themselves.

> (4) Government seems to work best with the consent of those who are governed. (See: Ex. 4:29-31; 1 Sam. 7:5- 6; 1 Sam. 10:24; 2 Sam. 2:4; 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Kings 12:1; Acts 6:3. By contrast see: 1 Kings 12:15-16; Exod. 3:9-10; Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 25:1-21; Matt. 2:16-17; Luke 13:1; Acts 12:1-2.)

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thety are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Declaration of Independence)

Dr. Wayne Grudem: Scriptures Give Indirect but Significant Support to a Democratic Form of Government

As mentioned earlier, I like his views on democracy, not much so his views on Systematic Theology.

TLDR:

That said, Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a comprehensive work, and few people are going to agree with every portion of it. For example, I take issue with his lack of engagement with other serious theologians. I could offer a much longer, more detailed review of Grudem’s work. But such criticisms must be developed more fully elsewhere.

I will say that Grudem’s text is handy for getting some basics out of the way or finding passages that might speak to a particular issue. With this small criticism, his debating style is sub-par, [which is quite an essential part of the Christian faith]. I disagree with that small portion of the work, but otherwise, I still value the work as a whole- which is a sentiment we both share.

> I might go back to Abraham Kuyper or Nicholas Wolterstorff to understand how Scripture can be applied to politics.

Abraham Kuyper is a nice resource to check out, and his works- as explained here and here- offers a nice change to many Neo-theologies that seemed to gain a great deal of traction over the decades. However, I feel that some of his views rejects some of the most prominent doctrines in Christianity.

Congrats man! I was baptized as an infant, and then again in my mid-twenties. It was a sweet deal. It sounds like there are already a ton of great suggestions in this thread. I'll add my two cents...

• Get on a Bible reading plan. It doesn't much matter what plan it is, but get on one, and stick with it. I like the One Year Bible. You read an OT passage, a NT passage, a Psalm and a Proverb every day. There are other good plans too, this is just what I like.
  
  
• Read. Read good authors that can help you. People on this subreddit can probably offer many good suggestions. What is the Gospel is a great one. I know it sounds basic, but hey, we all need to remind ourselves of the Gospel, and this book is straight to the point and really encouraging. Future Grace is another great one. I personally love Piper as an author. I could list a million books that would be cool to read if you want some other suggestions. Feel free to ask :)
  
  
• Find a good church and get involved. Do your research to find a good church, but try to get started quickly. Put yourself out of your comfort zone to meet people, and go to stuff. Get involved. Know people and get them to know you. 9marks is a wonderful ministry that is all about building healthy churches. They have a corner of their site (linked) that is a church finder for any churches that affirm the same basic principles that 9marks does (this is a great tool...)
  
  Best of luck. It is a joy to see people excited for Christ. Congratulations on your baptism!

Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).

In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.

For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.

One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.

Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.

An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,

>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.

As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.

Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.

Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.

Have a terrific day!

Don't be afraid and follow where God leads you. Remember some of the greatest minds in science, philosophy, and art were Catholic.

Use your inquisitive mind to lead you to the truth about faith just as you do with science. There are abundant catholic sources online that can answer questions you might have. You might like http://www.strangenotions.com/ but www.catholic.com is a great place for answers to specific questions regarding faith. Peter Kreeft also has a good book (one of many) you might like, Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158617732X/theofficiapet-20#

>"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart the desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that by knowing and loving God, men and women can come to the fullness of the truth about themselves"

• St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio

Nicaea is a common misconception. The Council of Nicaea was actually about dealing with a dissenting opinion by a man named Arius, who claimed that though Jesus was divine, he was created by the Father, and thus less divine than Him. By 325, nearly all of Christianity agreed on Jesus' divinity, though it was not officially spelled out until then, mostly because there was no need. In fact, most of the battles the early church had were about people over-emphasizing Jesus' divinity rather than de-emphasizing it (see Docetism). Even the very first recorded heresy in the church was about Jesus being so divine, his divinity was contrary to the Jewish/Old Testament divinity (see Marcion; this was around 100 AD/CE).

It is true, as you claim, that Jesus does not directly claim to be God, and that the title Son of God is used elsewhere to refer to non-divine figures. However, reading the Gospels, one simply must admit that the authors did view Jesus as both divine and God incarnate. Some of the disciples were very educated men, who very wary of false claims to divinity, yet they were convinced that Jesus both was and claimed to be divine. As someone else in this thread mention, the Gospels are not just about Jesus says, but also about what he does, and about what others say about him - for example, John 1 is a clear claim to Jesus' divinity, as are the numerous miracles attributed to him. Even if we were just to use Jesus' direct quotes, it becomes evident that he wanted his audience to infer his divinity; take, for example, the "I am" statements, which were loaded phrases to a Jew (see here). I would encourage to study resources as to why the Gospels can be trusted as mostly accurate accounts (the fact is, they are extraordinarily more reliable, by a historian's criteria, than any other historical document ever), preferably from scholars not concerned with reconstructing a 'historical Jesus' - I would recommend Reinventing Jesus.

Trivia: At Niceae, Saint Nicholas, the inspiration for Santa Claus, punched Arius in the face and broke his nose. This always amuses me.

Wow haha! I didn't expect seeing a post like this on r/atheism. Like you, Joan of Arc has always been one of my heroes. She was an incredible woman - virtuous and intelligent. Of course, as a Catholic, I believe she was the real deal but anyway...from one Joan of Arc fan to another, I suggest reading Mark Twain's Joan of Arc (yes, Mark Twain) and Regine Pernoud's Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (which also includes transcripts from her trial). These books are widely regarded to be the best books on Joan. They are both very well-written and researched; the authors even travelled to France to look into the archives and study the actual documents we have about her. Another book by Pernoud, The Retrial of Joan of Arc: The Evidence for her Vindication also covers her retrial. Also, if you do end up using that medal, I suggest getting it blessed even if you're a non-believer. If Catholicism is true, then you'll be under her care and who wouldn't want that? You have nothing to lose.

EDIT: Your friend should have given you a book instead. It's an obvious choice and makes much more sense!

• Calvin's Institutes. Still the gold standard. The Battle translation is the best and most readable, but pricy, the older Beveridge Translation is available for much less (and free online).
  
  
• Reformed Dogmatics (Abridged) by Herman Bavink. My appreciation for Bavink grows every time I read him. If you want a "modern" author, get Bavink. This abridged version is much cheaper and more accessible than the full four volume edition, but if you've got the cash and dedication, go for the full set.
  
  
• Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof. This was for many years the standard "modern" Reformed ST., but now that Bavinck is available in English I think that is the better option, not that Berkhof is bad by any means. The one advantage Berkhof has over Bavinck is that it is availible for free online and as an ebook.
  
  
• Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic ed. by Allen and Swain. If you are willing to go with a multi-author collection instead of a traditional single-author volume, this is a good option. Building off of the ideas in Allen and Swains Reformed Catholicity, this book lays out dogmatic theology that is both catholic and Reformed. Many of the heavy hitters of Reformed Theology contribute. As with most multi-author volumes, some chapters are better than others.
  
  
• It's not specifically Reformed, but I'm a big fan of Millard Erickson's Christian Theology as well as the abridged version Introducing Christian Doctrine. It's incredibly lucid and balanced and is I think the best option for classroom use in an ecumenical context.
  
  
• The elephant in the room is Barth. He's sure to be controversial on this sub, but he is incredibly influential and I think should be read. One of the challenges is that Barth is quite difficult to read. I'd recommend Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader by Michael Allen. This reader (by an RTS theology prof) is the gentlest introduction and provides important context.
  
  TL;DR - Top choices are always Calvin's Institutes and Bavink
  ___
  
  edited to rephrase and add two more recommendations
  

>A lot of people there had the good advice of reading the New Testament, which I will dive into this weekend. Any suggestions for the best way to go about it? Should it just be read in order or are there any books you'd advised to check out first or that are more important? I already know a lot about the story of Isa/Jesus from the Quran but also know the Bible account differs in many ways, though I'm also already somewhat familiar with that thanks to mentions in pop culture.

A good study Bible would help, though more often than not they have a specific political or theological bend that tends to obscure the actual words of the book. I am not a Catholic (I'm actually very much anti-clerical), but there is a small copy of the Gospels that is amazing, and probably a great first place to start - "The Four Gospels: Catholic Personal Study Edition (Little Rock Scripture Study)".

I am also personally partial to the JB Phillips "New Testament in Modern English", though it's sort of obscure, it's also phenomenal. Phillips started his translation as a minister to troops during WWII, and found that the average English soldier was not, shall we say, the most educated, and found the Bible to be hard to read. Considering that the NT was literally written in the common language of the people, using common - not high or eloquent - speech, Phillips set out to convey the NT in English as they read in the Greek. It's a real shame that the translation isn't more popular.

There is also an excellent translation of the Qur'an which compares passages to equivalent ones in the Bible. It was created to promote interfaith harmony, and if you are familiar with the Qur'an then it might actually be a good intro to the Bible. "The Qur'an - with references to the Bible".



As an aside, I really, really, really like to read, and though it's a bit more academic, one of my favorite books on Christian theology/Christology is "At the Origin of the Christian Claim". It's a short book, and actually made Jesus comprehensible to me.

Book recommendations? I don't know what you mean exactly. A supplement or resource? The following resources can probably be found in your church, public, university libraries. Often, you CANNOT check out these types of resources, so you may want to consider investing in a few books. Until then, check out biblehub.com. It is a little odd to navigate, but it is FREE!

Resource Standards (A serious must)

1. The Commentary Why you need these explained here
   
   A single edition condensed commentary as well as a set of solid commentaries such as The NAC and HarperCollins. There are several solid choices.
   
   
2. Systematic Theology Explained here
   
   I HIGHLY recommend one of the following: Christian Theology(used in many seminaries/MDiv OR Intro to Christian Doctrine
   
   3.Biblical Dictionary
   
   Holman's and Unger's are two well received one volume editions.
   
   The three aforementioned tools are in the libraries of every single minister I know. The names do matter, but there are plenty of fine, scholarly companies that produce up-to-date, relevant versions of very similar, but not identical, resources. Above is a minimal (and I mean minimal) list for putting together a 4-10 lesson study of Job. If you would like to learn more about hermeneutics, you should read How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth as a primer. There are several other required resources to add to your library if proper exegesis is something you are passionate about. I taught/lectured on systematic theology, intensive studies, and church history to a well-educated group of adults (some of which were my professors). Even so, remember this always-
   
   >HEB 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
   
   Job: Interesting observations/thoughts to consider
   
   
3. Regarding the person of Job, the author, the date (probably 1st penned book), history, etc HERE IS THIS
   
   
4. Was Job a parable (mythology)? Research this point.
   
   
5. Was Satan trying to tempt God anywhere in Job, and if so why?

Here's the episode in a nutshell, with corresponding footnotes for further exploration:

1. We are called at to union with each other and God (ex: John 17:20-211).
   
   
2. Yet we are confronted with the basic divisions between people, among humans and the rest of creation, and between God and His creation (see here for a brief summary of St. Maximus the Confessor's Ambiguum 41).
   
   
3. We are also confronted with our own internal divisions, which are addressed by, for instance, the Orthodox ascetic tradition and hesychastic prayer -- eliminating distractions, descending the mind into the heart, etc. (see here for instance).
   
   
4. God invites us to overcome these divisions, and achieve true union, through forgiveness.
   
   
5. In Greek, the word used for "forgiveness" is "συγχώρησις" which literally means "occupying the same place or space." This is the union that overcomes the divisions in 2 and 3 above.
   
   
6. The act of creation is itself an invitation to share existence with God, and continues with God's sanctification of creation (seen in, for instance, the themes of "procession and return" in the writing of St. Dionysios the Areopagite).
   
   
7. This is the mystery of Holy Communion, the greatest example of God's forgiveness, whereby we are invited to share in Christ's Body and Blood in a way that surpasses other examples of intimacy and union (articulated very nicely in St. Nicholas Cabasilas' "The Life in Christ").
   
   
8. It's all summarized in Abba Dorotheos's metaphor of the wheel: in drawing closer to God we draw closer to each other, and vice versa. God invites us to the center of the wheel, to share the same space with Him.

For a good textbook overview, McGrath has a great book called Historical Theology

He also has a book exclusively about justification, since you mentioned that above. I read these as a teenager, and they proved to be great starting points.

Otherwise, check out the sidebar to r/christianity for online reading of classic authors. Read some basic treatises like Augustine's Nature and Grace, Luther's on the Freedom of a Christian, and Introduction to Romans.

I'll always plug my man Gerhard Forde, too :) Books like Where God Meets Man and On Being a Theologian of the Cross are short, accessible books with a perspective that I think is very helpful in approaching the "problems" of God and faith. Justification is his main theme.

Also, just curious, what's your username about?

> Aside from the fact that is appearantly is wrong many times (no jews in egypt, no 7 curses there, no census, aside from scientific questions etc. pp.)

Slow your role. None of these events have been proven wrong. The best you can say is "We haven't found evidence yet of the Jews in egypt" however there are many rational reasons why this would be the case. Lack of evidence is not the same thing as "evidence against" especially in this case.

Do you have any examples of where the Bible has actually be shown to be wrong?

I'll cite an example of its accuracy:

> A telling example of the Bible’s accuracy is in the transliteration of the names of foreign kings in the Old Testament as compared to contemporary extra-biblical records, such as monuments and tablets. The Bible is accurate in every detail in the thirty-six instances of comparison, a total of 183 syllables. To see how amazing this is, Manetho’s ancient work on the dynasties of the Egyptian kings can be compared to extra-biblical records in 140 instances. He is right forty-nine times, only partially right twenty-eight times, and in the other sixty-three cases not a single syllable is correct! The Bible’s accuracy is shown not only in the original work but in its copies as well.

Driscoll, M., & Breshears, G. (2010). Doctrine: What christians should believe. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

> God only lied in what he revelead about himself

What evidence or rationale do you have for this assertion?

I don't think you have any way to demonstrate this. It would be extremely awkward if there was an all-powerful God capable of inspiring the Bible, who does inspire the Bible and makes it accurate about minute historical details like the syllables in the names of Kings, but then makes it inaccurate about himself.

> this by definition had to be done to bring about the best possible reality for humanity.

I would kind of agree with this. I'd say "God acts in such a way as to bring about the best possible reality for humanity."

>decide to throw out insults again

Okay, I'll just keep it to your level of sneering and bile then will I?

>In no dictionary is "suspect" the same as "prove".

Absolutely. This makes zero difference though, as I said. The fact that we have no contemporary references to Jesus neither "proves" nor gives us sufficient reason to "suspect" that he didn't exist. Whatever verb you use, the argument is still junk. BTW, I never used the word "prove" anyway - you introduced that, Mr Strawman.

>Who is claimed to be god.

Irrelevant. Quite a few historical people in the ancient world came to be regarded as gods - this tells us zero about whether they existed.

>And yes, you would expect plenty of people to write about events such as a guy resurrecting from the dead and so forth.

Aaaand there you go shifting the goal posts again. Where have I said I am arguing for any guy who raised the dead etc? The argument from silence has some validity against the Jesus of Faith, given that you would expect a dead-raising, water-walking, thousands-feeding Wonder Jesus to get quite a bit more notice than your average early first century Jewish preacher. But I'm not talking about the Jesus of Faith, I'm talking about an average early first century preacher.

So you need to explain why we should have evidence for this average early first century preacher that we don't have for any others. Shifting the goal posts to talk about something else just failed. Try again.

>We do have contemporary evidence of some first century preachers. As it so happens, not all of them were illiterate like Jesus was supposedly.

I said "early first century preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants", ie the ones from Jesus' time, in the first decades of the first century. Compare like with like. If you have contemporary references to any of those (you know, Theudas, Athronges, Simon the Galilean, Hillel, the Egyptian), bring it on. It would be nice for you to actually stick your head over the parapet for a change rather than make these arch little oblique comments. But that "small target strategy" thing is a key part of your weak shtick.

>I asked you for the source of this

What would this source be, exactly? Anyone who can read English and understand the words "contemporary" and "reference" would be able to grasp the concept, so where would such a simple concept need to be defined? Historiography for Kids Who Don't Read Too Good perhaps?

>You quoted something supposedly

No I didn't. I put my definition of it in inverted commas to indicate how it would read, if any source ever needed to define a concept that is clear from the plain English meaning of the words. Perhaps I now need to reveal to you that Historiography for Kids Who Don't Read Too Good doesn't actually exist just in case you now spend two to three responses shrieking that I need to give its ISBN and Library of Congress reference number or you will have scored another mighty victory-in-your-mind.

>There is no such thing as a "post mortem" reference in the field.

There is one in the English language. It's another term that makes perfect sense to anyone who can read above sixth grade level. As is "contemporary reference". Those above the "kids who don't read too good" level can also see that "contemporary" in this context means "while the person referred to is alive" and "post mortem" means, by contrast, "after the person referred to is dead". Words are your friends.

>Would you believe it's in the very first link of your given link? Didn't expect that one did you?

Gosh! Another mighty triumph for Victory Boy! Or ... ummm ... not. Let's see - the first link I gave was to footnote 10 on page 109 of Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography. I can't see where that footnote uses "contemporary reference" in your odd way, so maybe you can drop the tedious school-yard "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you, so nyah nyah nyah!" act for a change and explain what you're talking about.

PS You still haven't coughed up any examples of any historian referring to Polybius' mentions of Hannibal as "contemporary". What's taking so long? What seems to be the hold up? And why do you keep snipping this challenge out of your replies? chuckle

>You've already agreed with this ... when you claimed he undermined himself.

And that's amounts to a "lie"? How? Read the text - he says he received his message from his vision of Jesus and that he's not subordinate to the "pillars" in Jerusalem. Then he says that he only met Peter and James when he went to Jerusalem after his vision, and nobody else. Of course, his argument here would be stronger if he didn't go to Jerusalem at all and/or didn't meet any of the Jesus sect leaders, but he doesn't say that because it's clearly known he met Peter and James. So his admission that he did meet Peter and James undercuts the force of the argument he's making. He doesn't "lie" and my note about what he says undercutting his argument stands. It means that his meeting with Peter and James is clearly something that happened and therefore something that he couldn't lie about.

And remember how we got onto this subject? You were claiming that Polybius being alive as a child when the ageing Hannibal was still alive in another part of the world, then reading some books about him and writing about him 30-60 years after his death is "a contemporary reference". Yet, at the same time, you're somehow also trying to argue that Paul living as a slightly younger adult contemporary (oooh - there's that word again!) of Jesus, in the same part of the world and meeting and speaking to his best friend and his brother and then writing about him 20 years after his death ... isn't. Or something. And somehow you expect these two contradictory positions to be taken seriously because .... waves hands around making squeaking noises.

It's always good to keep dragging wanky discursive bluffers like you back to their own vomit for a bit of good natured rubbing-their-nose-in-it. Just in case anyone in the peanut gallery is still reading and losing track of how stupid your tangled nonsense really is.

>Good for him. Completely irrelevant and a non-sequitur.

more chuckles
You: Paul is a liar, that's why no-one arguing for a historical Jesus uses him and they use Josephus and Tacitus instead.
Me: Ummm, the most prominent scholar who has bothered to address the Jesus myth fringe-dwellers does exactly the opposite. You were saying?
You: IRRELEVANT! NON-SEQUITUR! ALARM! ALARM!

This really is a most amusing exchange. You're like the gift that keeps on giving. (I actually just accidental wrote "the git that keeps on giving". Naughty typos!)

Then we get back to the stentorian-assertions-substituted-for-argument:

>the New Testament isn't considered reliable. For obvious reasons. To make a case for a historical version, you must state that the New Testament is wrong and a book of mythical events.

Yes. It's a good thing those silly old scholars who believe we can critically analyse ancient texts to determine what historical elements may lie behind them have assertion-blurting anonymous internet nobodies to set them straight. Whatever would we do without you guys?

>why do you think he's the primary source for King Arthur stuff?

Ummm, he isn't. Hint: this may be because he doesn't mention Arthur anywhere.

>Do you even understand what you're saying anymore?

I understand that the idea that a source that doesn't mention Arthur at all can't be "the most (sic) key source for King Arthur". In fact I have a bright five year old nephew would would grasp that. I also know why Gildas is tangentially relevant to the question of the historicity of Arthur and am getting great amusement at watching you get increasingly tangled in your blundering mention of him in the first place. It's also hilarious that your tone become more and more strident and triumphant as the ice creaks and cracks under your skates.

> Christians aren't offended of historical versions of Jesus.

Really? Because these Christians sure are:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007V91I7M

www.amazon.com/Finding-Real-Jesus-Christians-Skeptical-ebook/dp/B0031QHH4M

There's a whole Christian genre of "how them durn scholars with their danged book larnin' gone told a pack o' LIES about JAYsus!"

Despite this, the durn scholars keep on producing work on Jesus that flies in the face of Christianity and yet continue to consider the "Jesus myth" thesis to be amateur hour junk. You still haven't explained all this. Try again - it's fun to watch you spin in circles.

Toodle pip!

Desiring the Kingdom (and follow-up Imagining the Kingdom) by James K. A. Smith | This deals with liturgy, theology, and church life. Both books are philosophically and theologically dense, but present the material in such a way that is accessible to educated laypeople as well. He's got several other books that are very well written and researched (see especially his The Fall of Interpretation which is a great introduction to hermeneutic theory).

God, Guilt, and Death by Merold Westphal | This book interacts with various forms of religion, ultimately making the case that covenantal religion is the one best equipped to deal with the perennial questions of human existence.

Creation Regained by Al Wolters | This text interacts with the dominion theology of the Kuyperian tradition, making the case that Reformed theology is necessarily concerned with all aspects of creation, including culture, creation, and more.

Truth is Stranger than it Used To Be by Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton | These authors present an accessible introduction to postmodern philosophy, criticizing it where appropriate and allowing it to speak on its own terms, all from a Reformed perspective.

There are plenty other great texts like these out there. Let me know if there is something more specific you're looking for.

Resources

Websites

Islam Wikipedia entry

Qur'an Wikipedia entry

WhyIslam? - A Islam info site. It is run by Muslims, so it it is biased towards Islam, but it is still very informative.

Answering Islam - A Christian apologetic website regarding Islam. Very helpful. My #1 resource on answering Muslim objections to Christianity.

Books

These are only books that I own/know to be a great source of information. There are multitude of other books out there that are probably just as good.

"Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims" by Ron Rhodes

"Comparing the Qur'an and the Bible" by Rick Richter

"Islamic History: A Very Short Introduction" by Adam J. Silverstein

"What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an" by James R. White

That should get you started, and through your own endeavors you will undoubtedly come across other great resources! Happy reading!

Seems like a lot of these comments are anti-young earth creationism. So I figure I'll chime in.

First, thanks for being respectful in your approach! I see so many people just being cruel or dismissive when it comes to talking about creationism.

I suppose there are a few ways to approach the subject. I'll go through my reasons.

- The book of Genesis is written as factual, not poetic like the psalms, or prophetic like revelations. I believe it should be read as such.

- When God creates the world, he says 'It is very good', as the world was without sin before the fall. If the world was created over billions of years, with millions of years of death, plague and disaster, it would not have been sinless or 'very good' as God proclaimed.

- The world is made of things that require multiple components to exist simultaneously to function. Complex mechanisms are necessary to support life, DNA, RNA and proteins all require complex mechanisms and each other to function. Cells require that oxygen be distributed effectively and safely around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed without damaging the cell. Simply put, life is complex and requires interdependent parts to function, and as such, would need to be formed simultaneously.

- When it comes to dating methods, evolutionist often make assumptions about the starting conditions of the object they are dating. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, suffers from the flaw of assuming that there was no initial argon trapped in volcanic rocks at the time of their solidification.

- Fossils are found as we would expect them to be had the Flood happened. In fact, the fact that we don't find intermediate forms between creatures in the fossil record certainly lends credence to creationism. Darwin was aware of this and mentioned it as the biggest challenge to his theory, but put it down to the fact that the fossil record was not fully complete. Since then, we have expanded that record significantly and the same problem persists.

- Honestly, the flood is heavily tied in with a lot of stuff about fossils and geology. There are some really interesting books I'll pop at the end that you could read.

- Methods of estimating the the age of the earth or the universe apply assumptions about processes and rates that extend into the distant past, especially with erosion. General assumptions applied universally may seem reasonable but don't really make sense. Catastrophic events and processes can have a massive effect on how 'old' a landscape seems. For example, when mt st hellens erupted, it created an almost scale model of the grand canyon with sediment layers being deposited then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic steam, water and mud flows. The canyon walls now resemble those that are assumed to be of great age, even though we know them to be quite young.

​

Believing in young earth creationism isn't fundamental to faith in God. There are plenty christians out there who disagree with me on this subject and yet I still believe them to be true christians. I do think that believing Genesis as being literal is quite important to faith. The origin of sin and the fall of man are laid out clearly there, and things start to get shaky when you dismiss it.

​

Some reading material:

In six days

A bunch of stuff from answers in genesis

If he's not already, get him into praying the divine office. You can get the single volume set or the four volume set.

It would be lovely if the two of you prayed together. I would recommend (if this is foreign to either of you) to start with Night Prayer (compline). It's the shortest version, to be prayed before you go to bed (or 9pm if you keep the Hours) and it introduces you to the style of prayer.

Morning Prayer (matins lauds) is great - I love starting my day with it.

For you I would recommend reading Rome Sweet Home and/or Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic.

There is a lot of interesting writing out there about pastors who are pushing the envelope on humanism/consequentialism/secularism, naturalism, deism, biblical non-literalism, and other things that are so religiously liberal, they're practically atheism. The envelope is different in different places (a pastor can get a lot further in Seattle than in St Louis, a lot further in a United Church of Christ than in a Southern Baptist church), and different pastors feel more or less need to push it, but it's a very interesting dynamic. Every pastor learns in seminary that the Sunday-school understanding of God and the Bible and Jesus are wildly oversimplified, and the pastor must then decide how much of their deeper and more nuanced understanding to bring into their church. Saying these things will "rock the boat" and will make the pastor "sound like an atheist" to many of the church-goers. How does the pastor reconcile their narrow-mindedness with his duty and desire to make them honest and capable religious thinkers?

As an atheist, I try really hard to understand the religious mindset, so I got a whole lot out of reading "The Dishonest Church"; It's a book about this tense issue, written by a Christian pastor who laments the fact that most Christian church-goers are not very free-thinking and this causes good pastors to have to hide a lot of their relatively enlightened views. A more extreme version of this are pastors who have become atheists but who feel they cannot leave their jobs for a variety of reasons. That phenomenon is being studied by Daniel Dennett; He has a very interesting preliminary article here and a video about it here.

TL;DR: “Oh, you can’t go through seminary and come out believing in God!” (Quote from Dennett's paper by one of the pastors he interviewed).

Thanks for the response. I'll give a sparce reading list, as I find it pretty extensive.

Zizek:

• The Puppet and the Dwarf
  
• The Fragile Absolute
  
• The Neighbor
  
• The Idea of Communism
  
• Paul's New Moment
  
• The Monstrosity of Christ
  
• Theology and the Political
  
  Zizek has plenty of essays and talks floating around as well, but these books are probably the best--the first and second are the most sustained, the third is a lengthy essay making use of theological resources. The fourth contains essays by Eagleton, Vattimo, and Badiou. The fifth is one where he dialogues with theologians about St. Paul. The sixth is a debate with a theologian about theology. The final is a great collection of people all across the board, mostly Marxists, dealing with theology.
  
  Vattimo:
  
  
• Hermeneutic Communism
  
• After Christianity
  
  Eagleton:
  
  
• Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
  
• The Gospels: Jesus Christ (Revolution)
  
  Eagleton also specializes in short and helpful articles.
  
  Badiou:
  
  
• Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism
  
  Misc. Authors too extensive to list:
  
  
• Jean-Luc Nancy
  
• John Milbank
  
• Graham Ward
  
• Simon Critchley
  
  
  Secondary Literature:
  
  
• Christ and Postmodern Philosophy
  
• Any of the "so-and-so and theology" texts. I know Badiou and Vattimo both have one.
  
  Hopefully someone comes by and expands this list. I've gotta get back to work.

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.

VIDEO:
5 minute video from Oxford philosophy professor. Great setup for the following.
https://vimeo.com/138076932

BOOKS:

Most of these are written in a beginning to intermediate style. However, they accurately reflect the scholarly work on the topic. If you want the academic works, let me know.

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Gary-Habermas-ebook/dp/B01GKLSI8S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1525454337&sr=8-4&keywords=gary+habermas

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas-ebook/dp/B001QOGJY0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525454337&sr=8-1&keywords=gary+habermas

https://www.amazon.com/Guard-Students-Thinkers-Guide-Christian-ebook/dp/B00U894IGA/ref=la_B001IOH3GQ_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525454627&sr=1-6

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LUJDNE/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i3

https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski-ebook/dp/B001QOGJXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525454914&sr=8-1&keywords=Reinventing+Jesus

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGJVI/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1

https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-New-Testament-Evangelical-ebook/dp/B01MSUCJ66/ref=pd_sim_351_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FNH5CSR0J6AF3B88HMS9&dpID=51heGflFcaL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

https://www.amazon.com/Dethroning-Jesus-Exposing-Cultures-Biblical-ebook/dp/B007V91I7M/ref=pd_sim_351_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FKG1E1KYR46C9H9DDSQ5

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-God-Incarnate-Richard-Swinburne-ebook/dp/B003554IXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1525456309&sr=8-3&dpID=51WkknIrkbL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=detail

INTERNET:

Reasonable Faith is probably one of the best sources there is. William Lane Craig has two PhD's. One on philosophy and the other in theology. He is a well respected scholar who brings his professional work to lay audiences. On his site you will find podcasts, readings, debates, videos, question of the week, etc. It just happens that this week's question is related to the topic of Jesus' resurrection.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org

Starting with podcast 14 Dr. Craig begins his assessment of the Resurrection.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-christ/

Here is the complete podcast which is excellent!!! After listening to this you'll know more than most.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2

For a physical copy of the complete Office of the Hours, you'll need the 4-vol Liturgy of the Hours.

Christian Prayer has an abbreviated OOR, but it probably won't satisfy what you want.

Just a note about the books. A massive translation project is happening right now -- pretty much like what happened for the Mass a few years ago. The timeline for the new translations being finished -- or at least the final vote -- is 2020. Will they be published in 2020? Nobody really knows.

Even so, I bought my 4-vol LOTH in March. I figured that even if I just got two years out it, then it would still be worth it. I happened to find a good used set on amazon and saved a little bit of money.

And just an fyi about a really cool book, Witness of the Saints: Patristic Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours.

>In the four volumes of the Liturgy of the Hours, the official daily prayer of the Catholic Church, there are nearly 600 selections from the writings of Fathers and saints. Seeing the potential of this vast collection as a theological resource, Milton Walsh has organized these selections by topics according to the four pillars of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This topical concordance allows the reader to compare what the various authors have written on the same themes, while a chronological timeline of the readings shows their relationship to each other in time.

So this is a fascinating way to study the Catechism. Don't get something like this instead of 4-vol LOTH. This is something that you may circle back around to later on.

Well, it would depend on what you feel your soul is looking for right now.

You say you're agnostic, there are books for people who want to get a sense of the existence of God, like Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth. Peter Kreeft, the author of the book, has a handy section on his website going over various perspectives on the verification of God's existence.

There are books for people who want to get to know Catholic faith a little better before committing, like Waking Up Catholic: A Guide to Catholic Beliefs for Converts, Reverts, and Anyone Becoming Catholic.

There are books for people who want to get to know the Catholic faith more in depth, and have some hurdles to overcome, particularly from the protestant objections, like Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism, from an anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister whose battle against the faith pulled him into it.

There are people who come to the Church by reading on the lives of saints, others by reading on the history of the church and how it built western civilization, and others just by reading the news. It's not just a purely intelectual exercise, this is a spiritual quest and as such you have to give your soul what it yearns for.

Preface

Unfortunately I don't think there's a "one stop shop" book on the atonement. The atonement has a biblical/exegetical basis as well as philosophical and theological ramifications. Hence, to do justice to the atonement as a full-orbed topic in a single book, you'd have to find a scholar who is well versed and up-to-date in the relevant biblical scholarship as well as philosophical theology. That's exceedingly rare, and in fact I'm not sure if there is such a scholar today.

What's more, the atonement can be framed in terms of additional categories or sub-categories like biblical theology, Pauline theology, Johannine theology, and so on. (By the way, Tom Schreiner, Simon Gathercole, and Jarvis Williams are good in discussing the atonement in Pauline theology.)

In short, the atonement is a massive topic.

One book

However, if I had to pick a single book on the atonement that gets as close as possible to this ideal (but ultimately falling short of it), I think I'd recommend Pierced for Our Transgressions. The book has decent biblical/exegetical and theological (including historical theology) foundations. Not stellar in these categories, but not bad, solid. However, it significantly lacks in philosophical theology. In any case, I think you'd have to supplement this book with other books. I'd recommend:

Biblical/Exegetical

• Beilby, James and Eddy, Paul (eds.). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. This book is a debate between four scholars arguing for four different views on the atonement: Gregory Boyd argues for the Christus Victor view; Tom Schreiner argues for the penal substitutionary view; Bruce Reichenbach argues for the healing view; and Joel Green argues for a kaleidescopic view. In my view, Schreiner makes the best case, but read it for yourself to decide.
  
  
• Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Either this book or its less technical and more popular but still strong treatment The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. This is an older text, but it was and remains a landmark text. D.A. Carson still tells seminarians and ministers to "sell your shirt and buy" Morris' book if they have to. Likewise see Morris' brief essay "Theories of the Atonement".
  
  Theological
  
  
• Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. A classic Reformed text from a stalwart Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Our Sovereign Savior. A good chapter on the atonement by a world class theologian. Nicole was a Swiss Reformed theologian.
  
  
• Nicole, Roger. Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole. Includes essays on the atonement and related matters.
  
  
• Packer, J.I., Dever, Mark, and Duncan, Ligon. In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement. This book contains several essays on the atonement from J.I. Packer including Packer's classic introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
  
  
• Warfield, B.B. "Atonement". A brief article that gives an overview of five possible theories about the atonement. Warfield has other good material on the atonement, but I thought this would be a decent representative.
  
  Philosophical
  
  
• Craig, William Lane. The Atonement (in the University of Cambridge's Elements in the Philosophy of Religion series). A short book. An overview of the philosophical issues. Cambridge Press did offer it for free as a downloadable pdf, which is how I obtained it, but I don't know if that's still the case now.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "John Calvin's Position on the Atonement". Free article from an astute Reformed philosopher. Helm has discussed the atonement in published books too.
  
  
• Helm, Paul. "The Logic of Limited Atonement". Another free article.

Good question. I think it will take huge amounts of grassroots education and effort. I think success and support at local levels is mandatory to show others what is possible. When I asked Richard Grossman a similar question he told me to read The Populist Moment. But certainly this all depends on what type of party you are interested in creating :-)

That book is a classic. It's old, and some of the translations show that age, but it's still one of the most comprehensive liturgical books available in English.

In addition to a liturgical book like that one, you might want to get a commentary that explains what everything going on liturgically means. I would recommend Nicholas Cabasilas' The Life in Christ, his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, and Hieromonk Gregorios of Koutloumousiou's The Divine Liturgy: A Commentary in the Light of the Fathers.

Hey, thanks for briefly sharing your experiences. I would be interested in hearing more if you have the time. Do you align with a denomination of Christianity, or are you non-denominational? If you do consider yourself of a particular denomination, what one, and what are the primary reasons for the choice?

It sounds to me like you don't hold your beliefs (about Christianity) with certainty (correct me if I am wrong). To me this is a great thing to see, and in my particular experience more unexpected than not for a Christian. On this point, do you think that certainty is a bit too common in modern Christianity? I know Christianity isn't uniform and can't be generalized, but it is a common experience for me to see absolute certainty in Christianity, and I don't think it can be entirely explained by a selection bias on my part.

If you agree with me on this point, as a Christian how what do you think are the most effective methods for reducing certainty? Do theologians and scholars need to do more to make information available to congregations? Is it the responsibility of pastors etc to convey modern learnings and their implications on certainty?

This book I found to be an eye opener on the subject.

>Im not zizek but if you wanna criticize the source you can read him or see the videos were he explains his filosofy

I know who Slavoj Žižek is.

 

I have watched a lot of his Debates and Videos on YouTube. I have watched how he "Debated" the maniacal Transphobic Misogynist Judeo-Christian Fanatic called Jordan B. Peterson.

I have read his books let me Synopsize them for you; Accordingly—

 

• "Violence." ( A very Neo-Liberal Psuedo-Hegellinistic view and description of Voilence and a bit on Heirarchy. )
  
  
• "Sex - and The Failed Absolute." ( Hegellinistic/Kantian revisionistic Interpretation of Sex-Differences represented through skewed interpretations of Films, Literature and Entertainment he uses as Examples to bring forth the Hegel/Kantian view of Sex and Gender. SIDE NOTE Kant was a very Religious Philosopher, believes in Authority and that God/Jesus is a good Ideal to follow. An Academic Theologist basically. )
  
  
• "The Sublime Object of Ideology." ( A very shitty Kantian Interpretation of Marx's defintion of Commodity and Freud's weird un-materialistic Interpretation and Opinion of what Dreams are. )
  
  
• "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism." ( His justification book to Revise the words and meanings of Marx's Defintion of Materialism and Materialistic Views. )
  
  
• "The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?" ( Apologia Piece towards the Atrocities of Christianity through— you guessed it; Kantian Perspective. )
  
   
  
  Slavoj Žižek— is a Capitalist Masquerading as a Communist.
  
   
  
  He is a Modern Stain on Anarchism and Communism, he believes in a lot of ways - that the Revolution will never happen and because he is Depressed he Actively writes Psuedo-Communist Revisionist Literature to discourage Revolution.
  
   
  
  Why do you think he is so popular, so free to "Debate" people, why the Media Corporations aren't trying to Damage his reputation? Not trying to deplatform him? It is because the Capitalist-Class, States/Militaries around the world and Religious Figures aren't afraid of him— because in his works he has never wrote directly against nor outright discouraged Capitalism.
  
  He is a hack, and a Disengenueous Revisionist towards the cause and goal of Cummunism- which is Anarchism. Anarchism is the end Goal of Communism, Communism is just Karl-Marx's "How to" Guide to Achieve Anarchism.
  
   
  
  I've read a lot of Theory on Anarchism and Communism. I'm an Active Anarchist in my part of the World-( Which I will not expose for Safety reasons ) somewhat succeeding in Communal Living.
  
   
  
  If you want real Scientists and Philosphers' views on Anarchism and Communism read Pëtr Kropotkin's—
  
  
• "Conquest of Bread"
  
  
• "Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal"
  
  
• "Scientific Evolutionary Principles of Anarchism & Co-operation based on Darwin's Evolutionary Theory."
  
   
  
  Albert Einstein's—
  
  
• "Why Socialism".
  
   
  
  Read Karl Marx as well— so that you don't fall for bullshit Revisionists of the Modern Times like Slavoj Žižek.
  
   
  
   
  
  

  EDIT:
  

  
  >And the guys on top dont really wanna control you they just dont want to lose their power
  
  Are you even an Anarchist? I don't think you have any Idea what Power is. You have a very Childish view of Power.
  
   
  
  How does one protect Power? Maintain it? How do Dictators, Kings, Queens, The Pope - Politicians protect their Power? Hm? Do you know the Dynamics of "Power"?
  
  I don't think you do, going by your— description... if we can even call it that.
  
  Do you know the Definition of Control? Please educate yourself before you try to talk about things you don't really understand.

Alister McGrath's "Christian Theology: An Introduction" was super helpful for me.
He also has another called "Historical Theology" which I have yet to read, but have heard many great things about. He does a great job of tracing Christian theology throughout history, and framing it in a digestible, easy to understand way.

>but every now and then you get a truly beneficial one that does create information.

I'm not arguing there are no beneficial mutations. I'm arguing that the experiments thus showcased did not show an increase in information. Its just scrambled, or deleted. Less information, less variety, less and less options. And the really naughty part about this is the bait and switch - I asked for an increase in information experiment, and I get an article that fallaciously references the Lenski.

>probably reads more than he'd like..

I would suggest this book because he might like to follow his philosophies to their frightful conclusions.

>"evolution is just a theory" makes most of the "arguments not to use"

I didn't ever say this! Please read my statements before shoving words into my mouth. So do you know that there is a difference between science, and a scientific theory? Did you know that speciation has a root word, 'species', that BrunnerPB admittedly agrees that its a non-scientific word? So then, would you explain to me why I have to accept a word as a scientific definition when its root words and concepts are not? A word like 'speciation' is packed full of evolutionary precepts wont be simply slid into usage without challenge.

>Our side isn't even considered a theory, after all.

Am I in crazyland? Do you even know what a theory is? And who are you sourcing in with this statement? Creation theory is alive and viable, defensible, and in my opinion, enjoys much stronger evidence and arguments than the assumptions of evolutionary theory. Might I suggest a book for you sir - In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Its not blind faith that has convinced me in special creation - its evidence.

*edit: formating

>Very few people know that Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) wrote a major work on Joan of Arc. Still fewer know that he considered it not only his most important but also his best work. He spent twelve years in research and many months in France doing archival work and then made several attempts until he felt he finally had the story he wanted to tell. He reached his conclusion about Joan's unique place in history only after studying in detail accounts written by both sides, the French and the English.

Because of Mark Twain's antipathy to institutional religion, one might expect an anti-Catholic bias toward Joan or at least toward the bishops and theologians who condemned her. Instead one finds a remarkably accurate biography of the life and mission of Joan of Arc told by one of this country's greatest storytellers. The very fact that Mark Twain wrote this book and wrote it the way he did is a powerful testimony to the attractive power of the Catholic Church's saints. This is a book that really will inform and inspire.


http://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Mark-Twain/dp/0898702682/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421281959&sr=8-2&keywords=joan+of+arc


>Using historical documents and translated by Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc seeks to answer the questions asked by Joan's contemporaries as well as us: Who was she? Whence came she? What had been her life and exploits? First published in the United States in 1966 by Stein and Day, this book reveals the historical Joan, described in contemporary documents by her allies as well as her enemies.


http://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Herself-Her-Witnesses/dp/0812812603/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421282282&sr=1-6&keywords=joan+of+arc+biography

I've been listening to a series of lectures on Faith and Politics by Wayne Grudem, based on his recent book Politics According to the Bible. In them, he builds a Bible-based view of Christians and politics, and then tackles difficult, timely issues. I haven't read the book, but the lectures are fantastic. My only complaint would be that he doesn't spend enough time acknowledging and addressing counter-arguments to his positions. Nonetheless, he builds a great case for his views.

You can find all of the lectures here.

Specific to your question on how Christians should vote, the first few lectures are probably most helpful:

Faith and Politics: Five wrong views about Christians and politics (Ch. 1: Pt. 1-2 of 5) - Dr. Wayne Grudem

Faith and Politics: Five wrong views about Christians and politics (Ch. 1: Pt. 3 of 5) - Dr. Wayne Grudem

Faith and Politics: Five wrong views about Christians and politics (Ch. 1: Pt. 4-5 of 5) - Dr. Wayne Grudem

A Better Solution: Significant Christian Influence on Government (Ch. 2:) - Dr. Wayne Grudem

A Better Solution: Significant Christian Influence on Government (Ch. 2:) - Dr. Wayne Grudem

Yes, I do. As does /u/bsmason

Here's a hit list.

Episode 200 of Christ the Center. Richard Gaffin Jr. and his student Lane Tipton in particular are the best. If you are not familiar with Christ the Center, check them out. They also did a whole conference on Union with Christ. You will also find a debate between Horton and Tipton on this topic.

One With Christ

The Chapter on Union with Christ in John Murray's Book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

Sinclair Ferguson has now written on it in his excellent and recent book The Whole Christ. This one is good because he speaks on the dangers of Legalism and Antinomianism, which are the resultant errors when we get a function theology of Union wrong.

Tangentially related: Mark Jones' Antinomianism, Reformed Theology's Unwelcomed Guest is also related to the topic. He is particularly strong on Christology, and consistently emphasiszes that we are united to Christ, the God-Man and how this should impact us.

I have read all these books, some more than once, and recommend them.

Some extra context might be Freud's book, "Beyond the Pleasure Principle." Zizek's point at the beginning is nicely analogous to Freud's notion of the 'death impulse', which doesn't mean 'the will/desire to die.' Rather, humans, like the universe, have evolved in spite of a mechanism which compels us to strive for a kind of inorganic equilibrium (the resistance to too much external stimuli). Similarly, love is a reaction-formation to the unbearable multiplicity of stimuli out there. Using the 'menu' metaphor for companionship, often we browse the menu for our ideal mate forgetting that the menu (world) has billions of options (people) to select from. At some point, we make a selection (or maybe a few selections--at once or sequentially) beyond which we do not 'look' for other options on the menu. In other words, I single out a favorable dish and, when my friend complains, "But you haven't even looked at the rest of the menu!" I reply, "To hell with the rest of the menu! I don't care about the rest! I am indifferent to them! This is who I choose to care about to the exclusion of all others!"

Edit: Some really, really good context can be found in an article of his entitled, "Neighbors and Other Monsters" from the book The Neighbor.

All history you learn in high school is that kind of bullshit. Unfortunately, a lot of history books will give you the propaganda dissipated at the time as fact, much as I imagine nationalistic history books written in 200 years will quote from CNN and Fox to describe Bush's great war against the terrorists who hate our freedom. People don't like questioning nationalistic mythologies. Especially when they explain that we're all great heroes of idealistic freedom.

Given that you're on /r/Anarchism, you'd probably enjoy A People's History of the United States. Or really anything by Howard Zinn. The Populist Movement by Lawrence Goodwyn is good for talking about the post-Civil War era economic bullshit. Any biographies or autobiographies of the founders (even those written from a nationalistic point of view) will be unable to hide their business dealings and positions of power before, during, and after the revolution.

Any decent US history class you take should have a good list of readings. Better than I can remember off the top of my head.

If you have a Kindle The Autobiography of Ben Franklin is free and goes into great detail about his wealth, his positions in the Pennsylvania colonial government before the revolution, and his terms as President of Pennsylvania after the revolution (before the Constitution was adopted abolishing such positions). It does, of course, completely gloss over the fact that he knocked up a prostitute at 19, or that he was constantly having affairs. But often history is about recognizing what people aren't saying.

>I also really want to show him that Christianity is not just a white religion. Being a black Muslim is like a “thing” in a way that being black Christian is not a “thing” if that makes sense.

Yeah I'm not sure where that line of logic (Islam = black religion; Christianity = white religion) came from because I've met many people who believed the same. Considering the fact that Islam has a long history of enslaving Africans ...

James White is pretty much at the forefront of the apologetic work on Islam. I highly recommend his book, What Every Christian Should Know About the Qur'an. You can also find a lot of his Dividing Line broadcasts on YouTube where he talks about Islam.

>Also is it worth reading the Koran to better understand his mindset and to build some kind of bridge or something?

It doesn't hurt just as long as understand that reading a translation of the Qur'an means you haven't read the Qur'an because it can only be read in Arabic. While English translations try to make the Bible understandable, the English translations of the Qur'an purposely use archaic language to try and give the Qur'an an air of supremacy (for lack of a better word).

For people who are interested in this topic

I have been picking up the most boring books and articles over the past few years on this topic because to me it is one of the most interesting topics on the planet. Below are some resources which I first used when finding & approaching this subject.

I highly recommend these short, fairly-down-to-earth books:

• Misquoting Truth
  
  
• Dethroning Jesus
  
  
• The Synoptic Problem (this one, only if the other two interest you a lot. It takes a look at how the four gospels were written/developed)
  
  Some articles by one of today's leading Textual Critics (he has been in many public debates with Bart Ehrman [the guy in the OP article])
  
  
• Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today
  
  
• The Synoptic Problem
  
  
• Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text
  
  
• Interview With Daniel B. Wallace on Textual Criticism
  
  
• The Gospel according to Bart
  
  
• My Take on Inerrancy
  
  I'd be happy to try and tackle any questions about the subject, at the very least I know I can point you to the right place to ask.
  
  edit: formatting

hey mate, great question:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Gospel-9Marks-Greg-Gilbert/dp/1433515008

I found this book by Greg Gilbert to be extremely helpful. It's quite basic, and not only teaches what the bible says, but helps people to communicate the foundations of the Christian faith.

This was one of the first book I read after becoming a Christian and would have recommended it several times.

I'm going to take what you wrote on face value and answer honestly:

Some places don't deserve it. I'll use the example of a book I was given, and why I chose to apply what you're claiming is a genetic fallacy.

I got given a book about why creationist science is true and evolution is actually a religious belief. https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

Thing is I'd looked at the subject quite a bit already, and just doubted it was worth my time. But I opened it up all the same, flicked through a couple of pages, and quickly found an argument that I'd seen disproven many times before. I also saw lots of claims, and arguments, that I hadn't seen before.

It takes work to disprove these things, propaganda from the KKK or anti-vax or even (something probably much less harmful) like Flat Earthers, is actually pretty hard to pull it apart bit by bit. Their arguments/propaganda can be really refined, really subtle, really damn time-consuming. Insidious. Just saying "only idiots believe it" is way over valuing our intelligence.

That example from the book? It was a claim that I'd spent an hour or so reading about previously. I didn't have the time, or desire, to fact check every claim the book would make.

So I came to this conclusion "this is the sort of book which publishes lies." and I chose not to read the book.

I think one of the hardest humps to get over is the fact that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution. But are still a very significant number who don't. 1 Same thing with global warming. Many scientists do not subscribe to it and of course they are ridiculed and many lose their careers. It is incredibly difficult and strange to say that something that seems so supported by a consensus could potentially be wrong. It's in line with being a conspiracy theorist, someone who says that corporations are the real controllers of America, and that the top 1% have their interests ahead of everyone else. It's as strange as saying that the global intellectual elite believe that the earth is overpopulated and that if we do not drastically reduce the population, the human race would destroy itself and become extinct, and that as a result, they must choose the lesser of two evils, and do all that they can to reduce population, even if the methods seem less than humane. All these things would be simply insane to say. How can it be possible that the majority is wrong?

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

How can thousands of geologists and paleontologists and doctors and scientists simply be wrong? I think that is the largest hurdle to get over. If there were more of a debate for instance, and evolution were not the status quo, more would be willing to consider the opposite side of the coin. In a sense, it is somewhat like the story of the emperor who wore no clothes. These men claimed to be dressing the king with outrageously beautiful clothes, and no one could see them, but they dare not spoke lest they be ridiculed and laughed at. And it was not until a child in the crowd yelled that the emperorer was naked, that all the rest of the crowd stepped in, and spoke up, and laughed. A bystander effect in a sense. It is a difficult bias to overcome, and requires an open, thoughtful mind. Even if you listen to the other side just to ridicule and laugh at them, at least you hear their case before giving them judgment. Most who learn in academia never hear the other side.

But consider the evidence. Watch creationists and evolutionists debate in a civil, friendly, respectful manner on youtube. Scrutinize every detail. But don't prejudge until you consider the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence, the same fossils. Here's some written stuff if you prefer it, but I highly recommend the videos: 2

Populism is a reaction to corruption. I think everyone can agree we have a lot of that right now. There is bad populism and there is good populism. Trump is a good example of a bad/fake populist: a corrupt liar. The solution is a good populist. Think someone like FDR.

The book "The Populist Moment" is a great book on the history of the populism movement in American and the fifty year struggle to build it.

"God went oops"

Not so much. I can relate to your theory though. On the surface the Bible story does seem this way and I am sure that many people in and outside Christendom think this way. But dig deeper.

The study I did that really changed my views here started with Romans 9 where verse 13 caught my eye. Its the story of Jacob and Esau and the crux of Pauls point here in Romans is that, even before Jesus death on the cross, God saves whom he chooses. I had to read over Romans 9 and Genesis 25 (the story of Jacob and Esau, I think) several times.

As seeing_the_light says, you have a lot of work to do. One printed and online resource I recommend is Mark Driscolls book and sermon series titled Doctrine. I prefer the sermon series because its free and it gives me something to do on my way to work :-).

Let me make that easy for you.

Check out Doctrine by Mark Driscoll It's written in clear language and covers a lot of topics.

Reinventing Jesus – by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace.

This book covers quite a bit of ground, including on the cannon of scripture. It is written by theologiana who are also professors, so the writing is not dry but engaging. It covers well worn ground, but puts its topics together in a response to thigns like 'The DaVinci Code' and other attacks on historical Christianity.

Reinventing Jesus

I highly recommend that you check it out!

I disagree with your painting the picture of the Bible as being somehow unreliable, but that is off topic.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that it takes "years of serious study to understand Biblical canon"; its basic message is clear. To master the Bible may take a lifetime, but not its basic message.

If you want sources, talk to them.

> PhD scholars

I have a book full of essays by scientists, arguing in favor of creationism.

I keep it displayed on my bookcase to remind me that even those highly educated in fields I respect can believe stupid things.

http://www.amazon.com/Populist-Moment-History-Agrarian-America/dp/0195024176/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1324785957&sr=8-4

What books was I reading?

The Bible

Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe

God, Marriage, and Family

Politics according to the Bible, by Wayne Grudem

Doctrine by Mark Driscoll. Currently going through this myself, good read.

The main ones I know of are Magnificat and Word Among Us.

If you're looking for something older, you may try The School of Jesus Crucified or even the Liturgy of the Hours, which includes sermons and other non-Biblical writings.

https://www.amazon.com/Every-Christian-Needs-About-Quran/dp/0764209760

Try this ⬇️

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an https://www.amazon.com/dp/0764209760/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_JUsODb5HK0DR2

You used the terms "zero" and "in it's entirety". They are absolute terms. No exceptions. So if I provide one exception to each will essentially make your facts faulty. No matter what you are debating, absolutes are extremely difficult to support, and you can't support your assertions.



You asserted two things using absolute statements:


1.) “…there is ZERO evidence of genesis being literal …”


2.) “… the entirety of science is in complete opposition to it.”


Statement 1.) You may say there is zero evidence you accept, but you cannot say there is zero evidence. Zero is an absolute, but with a simple Google, you will easily have a list of organizations and websites dedicated to offering evidence that Genesis is literal. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.)


To support statement #1, you must unequivocally demonstrate that there is ZERO evidence. You can’t do it. There is in the very least one piece of evidence. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.) You can’t support the absolute term “zero”.


Statement 2.) To prove this statement faulty, all I have to do is provide one example of science not opposing a literal Genesis:


Scientist alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.


Scientists at Answers in Genesis


Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation