4689

Reddit reviews: The best christology books

We found 237 Reddit comments discussing the best christology books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 98 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top Reddit comments about Christology:

u/GoMustard · 1 pointr/Christianity

I'm struggling with how to respond to your post. I'm not sure there's much to be said here, because we're kind of talking past each other. You don't really seem to have grasped what I'm explaining, and I suspect that's because you're assuming a number of things about my beliefs and perspectives. I'm happy to continue this conversation if we can get passed that, but I'm not sure I can continue with such a broad scope.

However, I feel like we should deal with this little bit:

>I think the best suggestion I can make to you is to step back, look at the shape of your beliefs - what you seek to include, what you seek to exclude - and see if a spot of introspection can illuminate the what/why of your belief structure and worldview. You are already remaking a religion in your own image, it pays to understand the basis of that image.

A few things I think we should clarify:

First, you should know that I'm a pastor. I've got an M.Div, with three years of graduate study of the Bible, Church History and Theology. I've studied scripture in the original languages. I preach every Sunday. I've sat in hospital rooms and listened and cried and prayed with people struggling with the hardest questions of their lives: questions about who they are, what their purpose is, how they make sense of their lives, many of them as they lay dying. All that to say, I've done--- and continue to do--- plenty of "stepping back to look at the shape of my beliefs." Far more than you can imagine. But thanks for the concern. You are right to say it's important to ask those questions of ourselves. ;)

Second, you should understand that what I'm expressing to you isn't something I simply came up with. What I'm sharing with you is very basic Christian theology you'd be taught in many a mainline seminary or divinity school. This isn't me "remaking religion in my own image." I wish it were that easy.

To show you what I mean, I'm going to suggest some reading for you, so that you might better understand what I'm talking about here.

I'd start with Biblical Theology: A proposal by the late Brevard Childs (not that it matters, but he taught at Yale). It's a tiny book, but it'll give you a very accurate overview of how the Christian canon came to be, and why it came to be, and why that question matters to Biblical exegesis and authority.

Also, if you're really interested in understanding the foundations of Christianity (and have some time on your hands), check out The Crucified God by Jurgen Moltmann. This book touches on a lot of issues, but one of them is how the crucifixion and resurrection are so foundational to the Christian faith.

I'm happy to give it one more shot, and try to explain with more clarity a canonical-critical approach to scripture to you if you're sincerely interested.

u/poorfolkbows · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I can recommend a few things.

First, there's this blog that attempts to show that libertarian free will is consistent with perfect divine foreknowledge.

http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-free-will-compatible-with-gods.html

Then there's this book by Jonathan Edwards on The Freedom of the Will. There's a chapter in this book where Edwards agues the libertarian freedom is not consistent with divine foreknowledge.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Jonathan%20Edwards%20Freedom%20of%20the%20Will.pdf

Check out Section XII on page 73.

There's this book by William Lane Craig called The Only Wise God where he uses Molinism to show that free will and perfect foreknowledge are compatible.

https://www.amazon.com/Only-Wise-God-Compatibility-Foreknowledge/dp/1579103162/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543020991&sr=8-1

Then there's this book by Gregory Boyd called God of the Possible, where he argues that God does not know the future perfectly because there is no truth value to future tensed statements about people's free choices.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Possible-Biblical-Introduction-Open/dp/080106290X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021053&sr=8-14

Finally, there's this book called Four Views On Divine Providence where people with various opinions explain their point of view and why they disagree with each other.

https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Divine-Providence-Counterpoints/dp/0310325129/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543021516&sr=8-1&

u/godofevolution · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

What you're describing is Calvinism, basically, and I completely reject it. Do you not believe in free will? If everything was already pre-planned, what would be the point of anything.

I am an open-theist. Basically, I believe that God's mind can be changed (there are plenty of scriptural references to this happening). Greg Boyd, who wrote the book, the God Of The Possible describes open theism as this:

>If I had to define “Open Theism” in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities. (By the way, I prefer to refer to this view as “the open view of the future,” since the most distinctive aspect of Open Theism is not its understanding of the nature of God, but its understanding of the nature of the future).

>To expound a bit on this definition, the open view of the future holds that God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels (though some hold that there is a degree of freedom, however small, in all sentient beings). To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action. This is precisely why Open Theists hold that the future is partly comprised of possibilities. While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices. This view obviously conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians, for the traditional view is that God foreknows from all eternity the future exclusively as a domain of exhaustively definite facts.

u/fuhko · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

I definitely second the recommendation of reading the New Testament! The Catechism is also a great resource for the details of the faith.

But if, u/powrightinthe_kissa, you find the Catechism a bit overwhelming, I would also like to recommend some other books by some popular authors on the faith, to give a broader overview. Any one of these books would be great so feel free to pick out one or two of what I recommended for your consideration.

Our previous pope, Pope Benedict, was an amazing theologian! He wrote some excellent books. I would recommend Jesus of Nazareth and Introduction to Christianity.

Mere Christianity is a great explanation of general Christian theology and the Christian narrative of the world. The apologetics of Mere Christianity are a bit watered down so I wouldn't read it for its apologetics (for that I would go to other authors, like Fesser or Craig) but Mere Christianity is great for basic theology.

Fr. Barron is also a great explainer of the faith, I hear Word on Fire would provide a good introduction.

u/Sovem · 1 pointr/AskHistory

Your post was painful to read.

Painful because I used to be an arrogant, know-it-all Bible apologist like your friend, and it's embarrassing to remember; and painful because I've since had debates with people like me/your friend after learning the truth, and these debates always go in circles and are so unbelievably fruitless and frustrating.

Listen--you cannot change your friend's mind with facts or logic. You can't change anyone's mind with debate; people have to want to learn and be willing to challenge their own assumptions. If this guy is truly your friend, and you want to be able to hang out with him, it would be far better to just say "I don't want to argue about it" whenever he wants to debate, and just go back to doing friend-stuff.

That said, if you are genuinely curious about his claims, there are plenty of resources out there. It's kinda funny, but biblical literalists don't have "facts", they have talking points, and they all use the exact same ones, over and over. Talk origins is the greatest single repository of every fundamentalist claim I've ever seen, and it includes sources for each claim and rebuttal. It's quite impressive.

I've read The Case for Christ, and it's not that good. It's an exercise in logical fallacies. But if you do read it and find yourself scratching your head at some of the claims, Robert M Price wrote A Case Against the Case for Christ and picks it apart with ease. (Price's other books are pretty informative, too, if you're curious about biblical history without the apologist bias.)

I hope this helps; just remember, these links and facts are only going to make your friend dig his heels in deeper. If you want to maintain any kind of friendship with him, I highly recommend changing the subject and agreeing to disagree.

u/OtherWisdom · 2 pointsr/AskBibleScholars

> We know very little about Jesus’ early life and upbringing. When
he went back to Nazareth with the disciples, the people were amazed to see
their carpenter as teacher and prophet (Mark 6:1–16), from which we can be
fairly certain that they thought he lacked the education needed for such
work, and thus had little in the way of learning. This comment also tells us he
had never taught there before.

> Of late much work has been done on the intertextuality of both the First
and Second Testaments. We have learned about the numerous allusions to
Scripture in, for example, Deutero-Isaiah, Matthew, and Paul. What needs to
be remembered is that such intertextuality was at home in oral performances:
Deutero-Isaiah, Matthew, and the Epistles of Paul were, like all other
writings in antiquity, intended to be read aloud. This means that their scriptural
allusions were designed to be perceived by ears, not eyes. This matters
so much because Jesus’ teaching was, from every indication, oral. We have no
evidence that he ever wrote anything. Indeed, we do not know what sort of education he might have had, nor even know for sure whether he could read,
although this may be the best guess. But our ignorance in these particulars
is no argument against Jesus’ ability to allude. Even if he did not write
anything, and even if he could not read at all, the evidence is that he and his
hearers, whether formally educated or not, had heard Scripture recited often
enough that large portions of it were quite familiar to them, sufficiently so
that oblique and sometimes even subtle references to it could be appreciated.

> We may surmise that he experienced the socialization of a typical boy in
that culture. Growing up in a Jewish home, most likely he attended school
from roughly age six to at least twelve or thirteen, as a system of “elementary
education” was widespread in Palestinian Judaism. His “primer” would have
been the book of Leviticus. Whether he had formal training as a teacher of
the Torah beyond the schooling given to every boy, we do not know.

> As a boy and young man, Jesus almost certainly attended the synagogue
(a place of Scripture reading and prayer in local communities) every Sabbath,
and perhaps on Mondays and Thursdays as well. As a faithful Jew, he would
have recited the Shema upon rising and retiring each day, the heart of which
affirmed: “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your might.” Presumably, he participated in the Jewish festivals and went on
pilgrimages to Jerusalem. From the gospels, it is clear that he was very familiar
with his Scriptures, the Hebrew Bible. He may have known it from memory,
a feat not uncommon among the learned. The Psalms were probably his
“prayer book.”

u/TonyTurtle · 1 pointr/Christianity

It saddens me that you do not see being Christian as holding any responsibility to do good works.


Reread The beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) and think about what Jesus is teachings. or James chapter 2, (there are more that I cant remember right now)

It takes more than faith alone.

>James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


2) As for religions carrying the same truths...It would be an arduous task for to explain it now. Jesus does not preach condemnation of other religions but rather their ineptitude in the true path to God. It doesn't mean that other religions do not share core fundamental principles.


The book that I mentioned in the last post about the Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta was a great tool to better understand the teachings of Jesus and how similar they are to eastern beliefs. The book really made so much sense to me and only strengthened my belief in Christianity. If you would permit me I would love to buy it and ship it to you. Just direct message me where you would like it to be sent. It would be my pleasure.

u/BoboBrizinski · 1 pointr/Christianity

Well first, read a Gospel straight through.

I thought this dialogue was pretty cool. I can at least vouch for Ulrich Luz, who has written extensively on Matthew's gospel: http://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Jesus-Buddha-Their-Teachings/dp/0800635647/ref=la_B001ITXLVW_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408078436&sr=1-4

This is kind of tangential, but this book where Buddhists write on the Rule of Benedict is really cool: http://www.amazon.com/Benedicts-Dharma-Buddhists-Reflect-Benedict/dp/1573221902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408078637&sr=1-1&keywords=benedict%27s+dharma

In a certain sense, Benedict's Rule and the entire monastic enterprise is
an attempt to deeply understand and live out Christ's teachings. In a similar spirit I would recommend The Cloud of Unknowing, which is a shining example of Christian mysticism and apophatic theology. Apophatic theology tends to create a platform for Christian-Buddhist dialogue for some reason.

Speaking of monks, Merton's Zen and the Birds of Appetite probably represents his most mature and developed thinking on Buddhism (or at least one dimension of it.) It pairs very nicely with his book on the Desert Fathers, The Wisdom of the Desert. (I don't recommend Mystics and Zen Masters, which is more of a historical overview of various figures.)

Here's a memoir of Paul Williams' conversion from Buddhism to Catholicism. Williams is a leading scholar of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. http://www.amazon.com/Unexpected-Way-Converting-Buddhism-Catholicism/dp/0567088308/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408078793&sr=1-2&keywords=paul+williams+buddhism

Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ is a very popular example of a Buddhist reflecting on Christianity as he sees it.

But seriously, read a gospel. Any of them, or all of them. That's the most important part. All the rest is commentary.

u/rainer511 · 10 pointsr/Christianity

It's called Open Theism. If you're at all serious about your inquiry, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God is a good academic place to start. It's not light reading though. I respect Greg Boyd enough to suggest God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God as well, though I haven't read it myself.

It's difficult to talk about a biblical God that doesn't have all power or know all things. That sort of language is employed often enough in the Bible.

Openness talks about God choosing to not exercise the power that He could, limiting himself in creating creatures with actual libertarian free will.

Since, the argument goes, true libertarian free will is incompatible with determinism, the future doesn't exist.

It isn't that God doesn't know the future. God knows everything. The future simply doesn't exist yet to be known.

When God or God's prophets make a statement about the future, it isn't due to knowledge of what will be, it is primarily due to God's knowledge of what he will do.

Say I tell you that next Wednesday I'm going to go to Walmart. If next Wednesday I'm at Walmart, it isn't because I had some special insight into the future, it's because I knew what I planned on doing. My truck could break down, I could catch cold, or any number of things might prevent me from going; but in all likelyhood I'd be there.

Now, consider God, a being who even in the most open views of God is 'most powerful'. When he says that next Wednesday he is going to be at Walmart; he's going to be at Walmart.

Also, Open Theism raises a lot of questions about God's immutability and impassibility. These are the ideas that God is unchangeable and therefore never the recipient of actions and only ever the subject of actions.

A lot of the ideas we have about omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability actually find their roots in Greek philosophy. That isn't necessarily bad though, at least not in and of itself.

There are a good handful of places in the Bible where God "repents" and changes his mind about things. These are often looked at as anthropomorphisms, but the argument for those instances being anthropomorphisms usually don't get much more deep than, "it isn't consistent with the picture of God I have, so therefore I refuse to accept that God could change".

I bought into Open Theism completely a couple of years ago, now I'm in the process of going back through and reevaluating things.

u/MyDogFanny · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Thank you for the link. I have it bookmarked and will give it a listen.

When someone on this sub references Lee Strobel's book I have on occasion replied with an encouragement for them to read Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ. Dr. Price defends everyone's freedom to believe whatever they want to believe as long as it does no harm to others. However, he does take great umbridge at Christian apologetics mascarading as Academic scholarship. His book is a defense of academic scholarship and he points out that Strobel's book is simply and singularly a rehashing of old Christian apologetics mascerading as historical scholarship.

I have your June of last year podcast qued up for listening: Richard Hays and Joel Marcus on Approaches to New Testament Studies. Dr. Price's book would be a good source on information if you did a podcast on what is Christian apologetics and why it is not academic scholarship.

To set the record straight:

I got a chuckle from your OP.

I do not have itunes and I sincerely wanted a link to be able to listen to your podcast.

From Wikopedia: In 2007, (Lee Stobel) was awarded an honorary doctoral degree by Southern Evangelical Seminary in recognition of his contributions to Christian apologetics. Strobel and his wife Leslie have two children and several grandchildren.

I would have no interest in going to hear Strobel speak.

I have never had hemorhoid surgery.

edit: spelling

u/YourFairyGodmother · 1 pointr/atheism

Probably the best place to start is Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist?. Bart Ehrman, a hugely respected NT scholar, undertook to write the definitive counter to Jesus mythicism. Failed. Miserably. As Carrier or Price says in the intro, that's a good thing. Arguably the most respected NT scholar pooped out a turd that basically says "most scholars agree therefore Jesus." The book I linked is the response by the mythers whose work Ehrman misrepresented, lied about, and so on, and it's fucking hilarious. In the course of things they rpesent LOTS of things that would interest you.

>First, most of our authors were discussed in it (DJE) and we feel obligated to respond, to clear the air of misconceptions and even misrepresentations. Though Professor Erhman is a true scholar, we fear his treatment of our work was, let's say, casual (a euphemism for `slipshod')."

Ouch.

>Looking for good resources on how Christianity's central articles of faith (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) are identical to "Pagan" mythology.

Whoa there boy! They aren't identical. There's a shitload of pagan stuff in there, particularly Cynic philosophy, along with various dying and rising god mystery religions, but there's also a lot of Jewish mysticism too. Jesus, after all, is simply the turn of the era Yehoshua (Joshua) who lead the Jews into the promised land. Robert Price's Deconstructing Jesus is the go to on that. He lays out just how those various cults and philosophies and shit syncreted into the Jesus myth. But beware - you'll need to look up and read something about every other reference and having an online OED will help too. He's fucking dense with shit you never even heard of or thought about. Hell, anything by Price is worth reading. Get them all!

From the top review for The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus

>Robert Price has very ably and empirically deconstructed the Christ myth to the point that the only item still seriously in question is whether the first layer of Q can be attributed to a Nazerite named Jesus. Price's successful deconstruction thus begs [NO! It forces or elicits or demands but not "begs FSM damnit! - YFG] the question: What is the history of how a diverse group of followers came to worship a character who eventually attained the status of the one true God? Enter Earl Doherty and his book, "the Jesus Puzzle".


The God who Wasn't There I haven't seen but some of my fellow mythers said it's worth watching.

Look up Doherty, Zindler, Carrier.

And someone just today linked to a Richard Carrier lecture on "Acts as historical fiction. Lemmes see if I can find it for ya ... http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/03/richard-carriers-lecture-on-acts-as.html

u/2ysCoBra · 2 pointsr/philosophy

>our religion, ie: for Judaism

I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?

>Put up or shut up.

I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."

Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.

Books

u/0r1g1na1 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Out of interest, have you read The Case Against The Case For Christ?

Quite a scathing comment in the Amazon comments (not that I pay much attention to that without reading the book myself):

>You see when Lee Strobel wrote his book, "The Case for Christ" it was a feel good book that was short on facts and long on fluff. It was easy to digest because there wasn't much there for your brain to do. It was rather a lot like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.


My interest is piqued enough to have quick look at both books though.

I've always felt as though the evidence for the biblical Jesus isn't sufficient for me, but I've always been on the look out for new information that makes me change my mind.

=-==========-=



Edit - I've been reading the book. Had to get to page 28 before any testable claim was made:

>Acts ends apparently unfinished-Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book
was written before Paul was put to death." Blomberg was getting more wound up as he went. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part-the gospel of Luke-must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so." He sat back in his chair with an air of triumph. "Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great," he said, "that's like a news flash!" Indeed, that was impressive, closing the gap between the events of Jesus' life and the writing of the gospels to the point where it was negligible by historical standards.

The author is declaring "case closed" on the timeline of the early bible based on the fact that the book of Acts remains unfinished? An assumption about why the book remained unfinished is followed by assumption after assumption. Scrolling through the rest of the book, the logic is just as weak throughout.

He is not looking at this from an evidence-based perspective, he is writing a story about a journey from unbelief to belief while skipping over the many leaps of faith it required for him to get there.

I wanted this to be a good book, but I partly agree with the quote in the Amazon review, this is a feel-good book written for Christians who are already convinced and are merely wanting some apologetics to go with it.

Just putting my thoughts out there.

u/epistleofdude · 4 pointsr/Reformed

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.
u/CoachAtlus · 1 pointr/streamentry

Awesome stuff. Thanks for sharing all of this. It always brightens my day to see folks connecting the dots in different traditions. I've actually been listening to Adyashanti's Resurrecting Jesus in the car lately, and although Adyashanti grates my nerves occasionally (for whatever reason, my issue, not his ;)), it's been fascinating to hear his take on the Jesus story. I also loved Thay's Living Buddha, Living Christ. I started my practice as a "secular pragmatist," but eventually realized how limiting that label was. Nowadays, I can get down with Jesus, God, the Holy Ghost, and any other relatively useful / powerful / touching / sacred (yet ultimately empty) phenomena / conceptualization that points me back to JUST THIS. :)

u/hellohurricane87 · 2 pointsr/RadicalChristianity

The problem with pain and evil is that we don't really know.

I firmly believe that the Creator didn't intend for any of this, yet that unhinges a whole bunch of presuppositions about what the Creator is like; such as immutability, impassibility, even omniscience.

For me the root question was "If GOD knew the outcome of creation before creation, doesn't that make GOD ultimately responsible?"

There are no definitive answers for theodicy. There are guesses and suggestions, frameworks and world views.

Our conception of GOD; that primary view of GOD's attributes will influence so much of how we understand suffering and pain.

The best framework for me is Open Theism.

Here are some awesome resources for what has proved so vital for my faith regarding pain and suffering:

1)The Crucified GOD - Jurgen Moltmann - an awesome book (if not a little on the academic end) thinking through Jesus and suffering.

2) Is GOD to Blame? - Greg Boyd - a much easier to read book exploring these very questions.

3)The Openness of GOD - Pinnock et. al. - for me this is the gold standard. It isn't too dry and heady but isn't weak on research either.

Awesome question and I love that quote from your brother.

u/FeChaff · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Since you know about Richard Carrier I would assume you already have read some of the well known Anti-religionists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Stenger, etc. If you are talking about secular biblical scholarship and historical analysis there isn't anyone who keeps me interested as much as Carrier, but I haven't read much in that subject. Some others include Robert Price and Bart Erhman.

There are several good essay compilations by John Loftus which are more generally directed at Christianity. They include essays by Carrier and Robert Price and a number of other secular thinkers. The Christian Delusion I think is the first in that series. Hitchens's The Portable Atheist is another good collection which includes older writing aimed at all religion. Bertrand Russell is a great, too.

u/BishopOfReddit · 3 pointsr/Reformed

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.

u/TelegramAHologram · 3 pointsr/ChristianUniversalism

Learning to read Christ figuratively. Spiritual language is symbolic, for example:

"Enter the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the [true] gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." -Jesus, Matthew 7:13

In my view, "enter the narrow gate" is not about exclusionary sectarianism, but rather a call to live a life dedicated firmly to spiritual ideals: compassion, forgiveness, gratitude, and love. This world is a difficult place. The easier, broader way is to be spiritually complacent, judgmental, selfish, indulge in temptations, and fall victim to negativity in general. The ego is a very worthy adversary-- in this world, living a life of unity and Oneness with God takes a repeated, concerted effort.

Additionally, reconciling Christ with other spiritual masters, the Buddha and a variety of Hindu saints... as you continue your interfaith research you'll see more and more similarities.

This book eloquently explains Eastern and Western philosophies and their connective precepts in a digestible way:

The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta https://www.amazon.com/dp/0874810507/ref=cm_sw_r_api_PLvLxbNPSEPQK

u/PilgrimsTripps · 1 pointr/TrueChristian

In response to your first point, I highly recommend reading this, it addresses God's possible interactions with other people in the past. There are other books that address this from the perspective of individual cultures as well

In response to your third point. Why does omniscience contradict freewill? Why would the knowledge that someone else has about you, in any way preclude you from freedom of choice?

If I offer a dog bologna in one hand and a rock in the other, I both know what he will choose, and he is still free to choose between the two. Why would they principle not hold true when extended to men and gods?


In response to your fourth point. If God did not create Adam and Eve because of the sin that he knew they would commit, he would be effectively punishing them with death/nonexistence for something they hadn't even done (yet). They freely chose to have children in a world where they understood contained suffering (the same thing that yours and my parents did), why is God responsible for their decisions?

u/Luo_Bo_Si · 10 pointsr/Reformed

You err when you conflate causal links with temporal links.

If you want to understand Reformed soteriology (which I would unfortunately question based on this thread), I would recommend reading John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

Let me quote a few relevant portions:

> The priority of regeneration might create the impression that a person could be regenerated and yet not converted. These passages in 1 John (2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18) should correct any such misapprehension. We need to remember again that the leading emphasis in these passages is the invariable concomittance of regeneraton and the other graces mentioned.

> We must not think of regeneration as something which can be abstracted from the saving exercises which are its effects...We are warned and advised, therefore, that while regeneration is the actions of God and of God alone we must never conceive of this action as separable from the activities of saving grace on our part which are the necessary and appropriate effects of God's grace in us.

So...there you have it. Your post is doing exactly what Murray says that Reformed theology does not and cannot do regarding regeneration.

As for your objection to the Lordship of Christ, your issue is not so much with Reformed thought as with the New Testament. Christ is the one who proclaimed that He had all authority (Matthew 28). Paul expands this in our understanding in Ephesians where he emphasizes that Christ rules and reigns right now over all things. Christ is king over all at this moment - over all people, all nations, all governments, all associations...whether they recognize it or not. What could be wrong about calling people to recognize what is already true?

u/pilgrimboy · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would recommend looking into open theism.

http://opentheism.info/

Here's an article from the site:
The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism
http://opentheism.info/information/problem-evil-process-theism-classical-free-will-theism/

To add to it, I would recommend these books.

The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence by John Sanders

The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

Others here have recommended other Christian approaches to the issue too. Seek the truth. God honors that.

u/NewbombTurk · 2 pointsr/agnostic

Honestly, that's a truly awful book. Even by apologetics standards. Here is a good book that takes Strobel's points chapter by chapter. Strobel, like most apologists, is speaking to an audience of believers, attempting to give them some reason to think their faith is rational.

BTW, have an upvote to cancel out the person who downvoted. I might not agree with you, but it seems you posted that in good faith.

u/CGracchus · 2 pointsr/ChristianSocialism

If you specifically want books that will make you take Jesus seriously, I'd suggest the following to start with:

Jesus and Empire by Richard Horsley
God and Empire by John Dominic Crossan (BONUS: he's Catholic)
The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann

These are all short books, in the low 100s page count, and the authors have an easily accessible style. If you get through those, read more historical Jesus stuff by these guys. I also highly recommend Marcus Borg and Doug Oakman.

Once you've got the historical Jesus stuff down, you can move on to theology! If you want to read liberation theology, go with the original. Political theology is good, too - Moltmann's Theology of Hope and The Crucified God are must-reads. As for economic theology, I'd start with M. Douglas Meeks' God the Economist and Jeorg Rieger's No Rising Tide.

If you get through all that and find it interesting, I can recommend dozens of other books.

u/LelandMaccabeus · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I would check out The Historical Jesus in Recent Research by James Dunn. It's a collection of essays. I haven't read this particular collection of essays but it is part of a series called "Sources For Biblical and Theological Study" which is very good and tries to get the most important essays on a particular subject. This volume would have various essays from the most influential scholars.

u/Flubb · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

But you've assumed that Q is the only way in which the gospels could have been written. The Two Source Hypothesis and Bauckham both challenge this (in different ways).


>How would their authors be primary witnesses if they relied on the same earlier source of supposed sayings, while being unable to agree on important "facts" surrounding the life of this hypothesized man?

Again, this only works if Q is objectively correct- you've got to prove that there is such an thing as a Q document (which so far doesn't exist, it's a hypothesis). As for their (apparent) disagreement: all the major events are agreed on, the differences are in some details and perspective (why you'd expect 4 people to have the same perspective on numerous events I'm not sure). They were not writing history in our modern sense, but they were giving historical accounts as far as they saw it, and hence picked out different details (Matthew being more interested in Jewish things than Luke for example). Also, I don't know anyone who honestly thinks that Jesus didn't exist. They might disagree with what the sources say he did, but they don't abnegate his existence.

>Really, some thirty years in the ancient world could correlate with an entire lifetime. Why didn't these gospel writers feel it was important to write anything down for such a long period of time, then all of a sudden you have three likely to have been written in the same decade, nearly thirty years later?

Well, assume they're all roughly Jesus' age at the time of the crucifixion, that means they've got until 90AD to sort things out (at the top end). As it is, the first deaths (these are the traditional dates) start in 44AD and finish roughly around mid 70AD, which is within the spectrum of lifespans for the time period. Now you're running out of eyewitnesses - you've got to start writing things down or else you've lost your link with what happened. A 30 year gap isn't a huge amount of time (Muhammad's first book comes out 125 years after he's dead, the great Jewish Rabbi Hillel's work comes out about 200 years after he dies). You've also got a chirographic bias - oral/aural tradition is incredibly important during that time, more than the written one (cf: James Dunn).

>Why would they then neglect to save a record of the Q Source?? The whole thing reeks.

The argument is that Q is actually incorporated into the gospel accounts. Q is only theorized.

u/zummi · 3 pointsr/RadicalChristianity

I am not claiming that the isolation and circumscribing of the ego out of the tribal happened solely because of or only with/through Yahweh.

It is more likely that this was simply a Trans-local phenomenon peculiar to the axial age.

The ego may be the "gift" of the axial age, perhaps the big takeaway.

Buddhism identifies and deals with the "I"while Judaism/abrahamicism (is that a word? I hope so) shall we say "employs" it.

I am sure this axial event can be found in other cultures before or after this example, I'm just wondering if this seemingly correlative idea has been explored in Judaism specifically.

Ultimately it is nothing more than the knower and the known seeing each other most clearly.

Who knows, Moses may have actually been a "true bicameral" schizophrenic who really "heard" or even "saw" God and was simply reporting his findings to his peeps. If Jesus the magician would have been around he would have likely "exorcised" the daemon Yahweh out of Moses. Perhaps this is what Jesus was trying to do all along?

Jesus contra Yahweh?

u/PuyallupCoug · 1 pointr/atheism

OP, in case you need it, there is a book that refutes the claims made in a case for faith. Here's the link

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile


Please report back after you and your wife finish your respective books and give us an update! :)

u/Cred01nUnumDeum · 11 pointsr/Catholicism

I started with "Christological Controversies". It's primary source documents (and the introduction provides really useful context) from the first through fourth centuries, all of which where "milestones" in the development of the Christian understanding of the divinity of Christ.

Justin Martyr's First Apology is really interesting because he's so early in the Church that he will not come right out and say "Jesus Christ is God", for example. It's not included in that book I sent you, because it wasn't a Christological work per se, but it's a good example of how pre-niceaen Catholics were talking.

u/ignatian · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

We do, however, have to be critical of the type of witness Scripture gives us. The high Christological formulas we find in the gospels are the result of some development over the first decades after Christ's death. I say this to simply point out that statements like Thomas' shouldn't be misunderstood as implying the historical 12 disciples saw Jesus as 'homoousios' with the Father. The development of Christological and Trinitarian doctrines is a fascinating question that needs to take the historically mediated nature of revelation into account. The book I cited above is a great intro. Also, this book and this book are wonderful texts for further examination.

u/ZalmoxisChrist · 6 pointsr/satanism

>actually

probably*

That's the best we can do, since the evidence is suspiciously lacking and internally contradictory.

1
2
3 4
5 6

Happy Ēostre, and happy reading!

u/Joseon1 · 5 pointsr/AskBibleScholars

You may interested in Hindu views of Jesus, some famous swamis like Vivekananda and Prabhavananda took an interest in him, they both did outreach for English-speaking audiences. The New Testament has certainly been engaged with by "eastern" religious figures, but nothing from that has made its way into "western" scholarship.

I'd especially recommend Swami Prabhavananda's article What Christ Means to Me, and for further reading his book The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta.

EDIT: paging OP /r/open_eyes789, in case he missed it

u/Elron_de_Sade · 2 pointsr/atheistvids

There is an interesting [critique] (https://www.amazon.com/Ehrman-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/1578840198) of Dr. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist that is very powerful. The critique pretty well demolishes the thin arguments Ehrman offers for historicity claims for Jesus.

u/MyEgoSays · 3 pointsr/exchristian

I was raised Christian and the majority of my family is Christian. However, I am no longer "Christian" in any sense of what that label means. Without getting into my more universal view of religion, I still find it necessary to speak to my Christian relatives on their level. In other words, quoting Jesus. Whether you're Christian or not, the Jesus story (many variations of which have been found throughout various mythologies) is largely adaptable and entirely relevant no matter who you are or what religion you prefer. And you don't have to be Christian to live by it or quote it. In fact, Christians seem to be entirely missing the point of Jesus' message. If he lived, and were he to come back today, I believe that Christianity is one of the religions that he'd eradicate - just like the organized religions of his day.

I really don't know where you're at spiritually, but if any of this is of interest to you, take a look at a book like this (written by a teacher with a background in Zen):

Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic https://www.amazon.com/dp/162203094X/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_XjZYub1ZRVF1C

u/brojangles · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

The Historical Jesus in Context. It's a collection of articles edited by Amy Jill-Levine, dale Allison and John Dominic Crossan. The articles give a fairly comprehensive overview of the historical, cultural, archaeological and literary context of Christian origins with contributions from several scholars including (in addition to Jill-Levine, Crossan and Allison), Dale Evans, John Kloppenburg, Jonathan Reed, Bruce Chilton, Ben Witherington and several other less known ones. This is really more for popular audiences than for scholars but it's a good introduction to a wide variety contextual perspectives.

u/eaturbrainz · 1 pointr/philosophy

Ok, so looking at your book links, this one appears to be the only one even trying for actual, historical rigor rather than Evangelical rationalization of belief in the literal truth of known-unreliable literature.

Now, what I want to know before I shell out money for a bloody religion book is:

A) What's the archaeological evidence? As in, not testimonies, because human testimony is supremely unreliable, so much so that many people want it thrown out of modern forensics.

B) If Jesus existed and was resurrected, why does all evidence for the Torah fail? After all, Christianity is premised on the initial correctness of Judaism: no Judaism, no Jesus.

C) Why are all authors appearing to write on this issue theologians and philosophers of religion, self-labeled "apologists", instead of reputable historians and archaeologists? After all, you're the one claiming it's a simple matter of fact provable by looking at the evidence: plainly all reputable historians of Second-Temple-era Israel ought to know quite unequivocally about this event, with far better archaeological and records-based evidence than personal testimonies by the members of a crazed messianic cult.

D) If God can resurrect the dead but does not do so, except through an afterlife granted by faith in Christ, is He not a complete massive asshole? In fact, why even bother making a world precisely crafted to cover-up His own existence by yielding naturalistic explanations for everything while also holding the possibility for naturalistic immortality in several different forms? It's like He wanted His own religion to fail!

E) Why on Earth should we trust that the Gospels contain any facts whatsoever and aren't totally fabricated? Hell, as long as we're supposing fabrication, literary analysis tells us there's only a few actual authors, so it's not like we need to explain tons of people all lying in the same way (which they could easily do, to promote an ideology they sincerely fooled themselves into), just a few people lying in the same way (which is even easier, especially after you account for self-delusion).

While we're at it, here's some Jewish apologetics; I hope your standards of evidence are higher than this shite.

u/deepwildviolet · 2 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

Fair point. A lot of the heavier theological books are priced higher, IMO, because of it being kind of a niche interest. There's also this book on the doctrine of atonement (also with Fr Matthew as an editor) for about 30$ for pre-order.


I definitely know what you mean about the prices though. This is why we need parish libraries ;)

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

>Maybe someone else can recommend a book with an opposing view so you can study for yourself?

Happily. Here's 'The Case against the Case for Christ' and if you honestly used 'The Case for Christ' as one of the main reasons why you've come to your beliefs then you're sadly mistaken on so many different parts.

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058

That should clear things up for you.

u/-DVTD- · 2 pointsr/Reformed

The Covenant of Redemption was a covenant of love involving our Triune God.

Here’s a book recommendation for you and your pastor
https://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Accomplished-Applied-John-Murray/dp/080287309X/ref=nodl_

u/hotandfresh · 7 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

There are several places to start with social memory theory. Full disclosure, I'm all aboard the memory approach and their critiques on the criteria approach.

Here's a few places to start:

u/psytrooper · 1 pointr/Catholicism

No great insights for you, unfortunately, but coincidentally I just got to this part in Pope Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth (part 1)". Benedict says that Jesus is using the imagery of the time-period for the afterlife, which we should not try to connect too literally to accurate theology.

Benedict points out that The Rich Man is in "Hades," not "Gehenna;" both characters are in sort of "waiting areas" for the Resurrection of the body, which was the basic idea of the era.

u/braumstralung · 1 pointr/OrthodoxChristianity

You are probably right, I'll just delete. This is a really good discussion of the language used in patristics if anyone is interested

https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Cross-Florovsky-Patristic-Atonement/dp/1942699093

u/marshallbear · 1 pointr/HistoryofIdeas

I would also recommend James Dunn's Jesus Remembered. Its a rigorous if confessional source that does a marvelous job of placing Jesus and the gospel texts in historical context.

u/bobo_brizinski · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Adding to that, the best Buddhist-Christian book I have ever read is Encountering Jesus & Buddha, co-written by a New Testament scholar and an Indian religions scholar.

u/EmanonNoname · 1 pointr/TrueChristian

"Contemporary sources" meaning people of the time period.

A modern-day theologian who bases his work off of other peoples testimony is not as valuable in the historical sense as a historian of the time period recording as close to first-hand testimony as we've gotten.

To me at least.

It was nice chatting with you. Have a nice day.

PS: [The Case Against The Case For Christ.] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1578840058/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/175-9664009-9240945)

I'm hunting up a torrent of both books right now…

u/FatFingerHelperBot · 10 pointsr/satanism

It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!


Here is link number 1 - Previous text "1"

Here is link number 2 - Previous text "2"

Here is link number 3 - Previous text "3"

Here is link number 4 - Previous text "4"

Here is link number 5 - Previous text "5"

Here is link number 6 - Previous text "6"



----
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete

u/Bolivar687 · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

Brant Pitre and John Bergsma just put out an excellent guide to the Old Testament. It emphasizes how the Gospel and the letters of the Apostles are firmly positioned as a continuation and recalibration of the liturgical relationship with God presented in Old Testament, which is something Protestants will obviously try to downplay:

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Introduction-Bible-Old-Testament/dp/1586177222

For the New Testament, I recommend Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth series. It's not a chapter by chapter breakdown but rather a scholarly look at each of the main and recurring themes. The first book, about Jesus's ministry, is mostly in order of the Gospel narrative:

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Baptism-Jordan-Transfiguration/dp/1586171984/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1541046537&sr=8-2&keywords=Jesus+Of+Nazareth

u/extispicy · 1 pointr/Christianity

It's from "The Case Against The Case For Christ" by Robert Price. He's a little extreme for my tastes, but I was looking for some 'light reading' and seeing Strobel's book dismantled seemed amusing.

u/RedTalonRedWater · 2 pointsr/RightwingLGBT

Pfft. Lighting a small fire and asking the spirits or gods for help is probably humanity's oldest spiritual act - whether its Freya or the Virgin Mary you're asking it makes no difference. How many churches have racks of votive candles for this very purpose? And there's a huge body of knowledge involving using the Bible for hoodoo-like spells and charms anyway. Tell 'em to go piss up a rope. :-P

You might appreciate the book 'Jesus the Magician' by Morton Smith if you haven't read it already.

u/roambeans · 7 pointsr/atheism

This might be a good follow up book:

The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert Price

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058

u/terevos2 · 3 pointsr/Reformed

Those are all good questions and common objections, I think.

Among the other resources you've been recommended here are a few others:

u/eyenot · 2 pointsr/atheism

> She's asked me to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I told her I would.

Be sure to follow it up with "The Case Against the Case for Christ".

u/President_Martini · 1 pointr/exchristian

Strobel's a joke. I read The Case For Christ when I was in a phase of desperately trying to keep my faith. Every point he brought up was terribly disappointing and when the people he interviewed brought some reason for believing, his challenges (if challenged them at all) were mediocre. He was never a staunch atheist as he claims. At most, he was probably someone indifferent to Christianity looking for a reason to believe.

I recently read Price's The Case Against The Case For Christ and it was hilarious and fun to read. I recommend it.

u/CalvinLawson · -2 pointsr/atheism

Congratulations on doing your part to make atheists look ignorant. The vast majority of reputable historical scholars believe the gospel Jesus was based on a real person:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1578840198

You're allowed to have your own opinion but not your own facts.

u/bdwilson1000 · 0 pointsr/ReasonableFaith

Yep..I read it years ago and found it quite full of holes. He basically presents only the apologist side of the case, completely ignoring major lines of evidence and the substantive arguments against Christian claims.

If you are interested in getting a broader perspective on his arguments, I recommend you read some of the responses to his book. Here is a pretty thorough review of the book from a skeptical perspective.

and there an entire book-length refutation here.

Remember, the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny. Try reading both sides with an open mind and see if his case stands up.

u/matt2001 · 4 pointsr/exmormon

Religion and magic are two sides of the same coin. I found this book compelling, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? The author Morton Smith was a renowned historian at Columbia University.

A few things I recall:
Jesus used magic words that were never translated from their original Aramaic. They would lose their power.

Jesus for the first 300 years was depicted using a magic wand.

Exorcisms and spirit possessions were all part of this magical world view.


Old reddit thread on this topic

u/Feyle · 1 pointr/atheism

Instead of finding that video why not read The Case Against the Case for Christ?

u/avengingturnip · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Baptism-Jordan-Transfiguration/dp/1586171984

Pope Benedict basically rescues Jesus from the historical critical method.

BTW, you don't really believe that the only evidence we have for Jesus is the bible do you?

u/cubist137 · 1 pointr/atheism

The Case for Christ? Book of apologetics written by Lee Strobel? Yeah, no. That tome has been refuted six ways from Sunday.

u/Ibrey · 2 pointsr/Christianity

The Christological Controversy, an anthology of both orthodox and heretical primary sources. (There is another volume on The Trinitarian Controversy.)

u/Iswitt · 2 pointsr/atheism

You could try this book that is refuting this book. Although I haven't read either.

u/cpqarray · 1 pointr/atheism

Send him a copy of the "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price. http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058

u/amoris313 · 5 pointsr/occult

Two relevant books that I haven't read yet (they're on my very long list):

Jesus the Magician - Morton Smith

Jesus the Sorcerer - Robert Conner

u/This_is_Hank · 1 pointr/atheistvids

He's trying to point you to the reviews of the book to get a gist of what is contained.

u/sc0ttt · 1 pointr/atheism

This is actually an argument against a specific book's claims... but it'll cover most everything you're likely to see... and it's a lot more readable than similar books.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058

u/arachnophilia · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

> Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ.

is this a bit like watching aquatic ape theorists argue against creationism?

u/MetalSeagull · 1 pointr/atheism

Just so you know, there's this book: The Case Against the Case For Christ.

If you don't want to read it alone, try listening to Steve Shrives' take on it as you go.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

u/GalacticCow · 1 pointr/atheism

especially since another person already did that: http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Against-For-Christ/dp/1578840058

And the person who did that was another Christian, no less.

u/ohwellokay · 4 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I'm Catholic, but I think you're coming from absolutely the right direction. It's inexcusable to dismiss all the innocent, horrific suffering in the world as being part of some abstract "higher purpose" or vague justification. Anyone who does is full of shit and needs to take a serious look at what they're purporting to believe in. I think these are difficult questions that need to be asked if you want to say that you really believe in God. A lot of Christians kind of brush over them, bristle when you state the facts, when you so much hint at the slightest challenge to their faith. But if they do, then their faith is shaky to begin with.

Jurgen Moltmann is a theologian who discusses theodicy (the problem of evil) in a way that is very fascinating. I recently read The Crucified God which addresses it pretty well.

I find it incredibly difficult to come to terms with the amount of suffering in this world. I struggle with it. I'm gonna fight it, I'm gonna keep fighting it, and I think that's what we're meant to do. That's the point of Christ. Christ is taking up the cross, he's taking up the suffering of the world, he's protesting God, he's protesting himself, he's encouraging, demanding this continual protest of evil and suffering in the world rather than justifying it.

It's fascinating fucking stuff.