(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best christology books

You should really read Jewish Magic and Superstition by Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg. It’s a study of the magical techniques and, more importantly, the magical philosophy which flourished among Jews primarily in the Rhineland around the 12th Century (known as the Hasidei Ashkenaz). The book is available for free at the link I provided, but you can also purchase it pretty cheap and find it in other formats elsewhere.

Magic of this type is termed “Practical Kabbalah” (distinguishing it from the more well known Meditative Kabbalah as found in the Zohar). I found this website some time ago on Practical Kabbalah. It has a really pretty format, but ultimately is nearly contentless and looks abandoned. However, it has a pretty great starting bibliography. I’ve been working on and off to collect the books on said bibliography and other books relating to Jewish magical practices. Recently I acquired a partial translation of Sefer Hasidim (the foundational text of the Hasedei Ashkenaz).

You might also want to look into the magical thought and stories in the Hasidic movement (not to be confused with the like-named Hasedei Ashkenaz). The aforementioned bibliography has, I think, two books on the subject, but there’s more books which broadly look at the mystical/magical practices of Hasidism and their legends. A good beginner book focusing on Hasidic legends is Elie Wiesel’s Souls on Fire. Martin Buber has written Tales of the Hasidim which has more tales, but is a little more dry.

There are some other books I have of varying relevance, but I don’t know how many book recommendations you need. Some of the books mentioned, centrally Jewish Magic and Superstition, are probably a good start. Also, a good book on mythic stories in Judaism is Tree of Souls by Howard Schwartz.

----

Edit:

I just finished reading Alan J. Avery-Peck’s article “The Galilean Charismatic and Rabbinic Piety: The Holy Man in the Talmudic Literature” in The Historical Jesus in Context. It focuses on Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, two individuals part of the charismatic, miracle tradition of antiquity and how this tradition was rethemed and incorporated into Rabbinic Judaism. You might be interested in such individuals and such a tradition. Of the same general time period, you might also be interested in Maaseh Merkavah (and Hekhalot) and Maaseh Bereshit (from which emerges Sefer Yetzirah).

Also, some Jewish figures have featured prominently in alchemy (like Mariam the Jewess).

It looks like I’m just going to keep editing this post with more stuff. Anyway, in regards to patriarchal religion being introduced by the Jews which led to the destruction of the Great Goddess, well, the whole Great Goddess hypothesis isn’t really argued in modern academia. Regardless, a patriarchal dynamic to religion was not introduced by Jews, and the Jewish God is overtly asserted to not have a gender (or be two genders, depending on how you read the text) and female personification has historically been applied to the Jewish God. All of this aside, Rabbi Jill Hammer has done a lot of theological work focusing on the Divine Feminine in Judaism. She even worked to make a highly female inclusive siddur (which seems to be permanently out of print). She runs this website which has, for instance, an article on the Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine of the Godhead which is the kind of thing that’d probably fit just as easily on a website on Wicca. She’s also written, like, a Jewish wheel of the year book (which I bought and, regardless of how one feels about the book as a whole, is a nice assortment of references to midrash). In a similar theme, I’ve also read On the Wings of Shekhinah: Rediscovering Judaism’s Divine Feminine by Rabbi Leah Novick, but I didn’t really like it.

You might also want to look into The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism. I own it, but haven’t really looked through it. I’ve seen some other people cite it though. So I can’t really give my own opinion of it other than mention its existence.

Wait, also also, just occurred to me, you might want to look into the creation of Matzevot and Bethel as seen primarily in Genesis. They’re akin to altars anointed with oil where the Divine is asked to be present. The best book I know of academically touching on the subject is Benjamin Sommer’s Bodies of God (which is a book I somehow manage to tie into just about everything I ever write on Reddit). Glancing around to see if I could find anything else on this theme, I came across this text (I don’t know how relevant or interesting it is since I hadn’t read it, I’m reading it now) (Finished reading. I’d certainly recommend it as an interesting text. Not much about Metzevot. Instead a whole lot on early Medieval Jewish magic involving oil. There are a good handful of these divination rituals translated. The rituals primarily involve using oil and a reflective surface [predominantly a fingernail, but also mentioned is oil on water, iron, mirror, liver, glass cups, and resin] to commune with spiritual Princes.).

Probably should have also mentioned Ancient Jewish Magic: A History by Gideon Bohak which makes reference to Trachtenberg's work, but aims to be more expansive and make use of later scholarship to advance the neglected study of Jewish magical traditions.

I'm really not sure where to start with this. There is so much here mis-quoted, misrepresented and taken out of context. Some of them you have stated as being in opposition to one another aren't even opposing or related.

Each of your statements about Paul and Jesus couldn't be more wrong. Either the part about Jesus or Paul is incorrect, or there is a false equivalence.

Since you have made so many statements, I am just going to comment on one. This is for the sake of brevity (although this has turned out to be a lengthy post). Additionally I don't think it is necessary to comment on them all to make the point.

If you're not satisfied with me just dealing with just this one, then I can show you more.

> Paul boasts of being a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel. Jesus says to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees.

Does Paul boast of his training under Gamaliel?

The quote is taken from Acts 22:3. Paul had just been arrested in the Temple (21:27-36) and asked to address the angry mob of Jews (21:37-40).

At the beginning of his speech he introduces himself:

>“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day.

He explains that he is biologically and ethnically one of them. He explains that he was taught by one of their most important teachers and thus is a person highly educated in Judaism.

This should get their attention and give him sufficient opportunity to present his case.

> 4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, 5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.

He was someone who was trying to wipe out the church and was authorised by those of greatest authority.

This guy was a super-zealous, highly educated Jew. Paul should be regarded as a top top guy to them, so they would most likely give him air time.

>6 “As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me

Then he became a Christian and everything changed.

Paul used his previous education to make a point and gain an audience for the purpose of sharing his conversion story and to give credit to his words, not to boast for his credit.

The point of his announcement wasn't to boast of his education, but to make a way to give glory to Christ and tell of what he has done in Paul's life.

It is a bit like if a former atheist was speaking to a group of atheists, telling them that he was Richard Dawkins right hand man before he became a Christian.

To further reinforce the point, Paul writes this in Philippians 3:

> 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.

Paul states that everything he was before, including being a Pharisee counts for nothing.

Does this suggest that he was boasting about being a Pharisee?

Why does Jesus says to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees?

This statement is made in two places in the Gospels: Matthew 12 and Luke 16.

It should be noted here that there were different types of Pharisees (Hillel and Shammai for example) and Jesus' interactions with them weren't always negative (think Nicodemus, the rich young ruler, and when they warned him that Herod was after him in Luke 13:31).

Did you know that some scholars think that Jesus may have been a Pharisee himself?

The Pharisees were generally regarded as the religious elites of their day and were held in very high regard by the people. They were the ones whom it appeared were doing a great job of keeping God's law and people looked up to them for it.

Why then would Jesus tell his disciples to be weary of their teaching?

The Pharisees were very zealous to keep the law. Some were so zealous that they did extra things to ensure they not only kept the law but remained so far away from breaking it that it would (hopefully) never happen. So they made extra rules which kept them further away from the law, then extra ones on top of that.

An example of this was the extra 'laws' they made for the Sabbath, just so they made sure they wouldn't break it. This concerned types of labour, how to prepare your clothes, preparation of food, how far you could walk, not looking in a mirror or lighting a candle.

The leaven of the Pharisees wasn't to ignore the Pharisees correct teaching of the law (which were for man's good), but these extra laws, which were a burden.

Are the elements of the statement related or in opposition to one another?

Both passages contain references to Pharisees, but the context is completely different.

One is to set up a group of people to listen to a testimony and the other is to advise against the extra laws of the ultra zeal.

These passages are not related in any way to one another.

Paul isn't boasting and Jesus isn't outright condemning all Pharisees or all their teaching.

It does not show that Jesus and Paul taught different things or were in opposition to one another.

The comparison is a false equivalence and does not support the point you are trying to make. Do you agree?

If you think I have this incorrect, I'd be keen to hear a thorough rebuttal :-)

Would you like me to address any of the other statements you've made?

Edits are spelling and grammar and added where a reference was from.

Indeed, since they know not Christ, how could they possibly understand His Mother as the crown of creation? The sinlessness of Mary (and other saints) does not bother us, because we know human nature lacks the power to save itself or others. They seem to think a sinless person's works are a demand on God's justice; as if He owes anyone salvation. Since we believe we are saved by Jesus with Mary's cooperation, they claim we exalt Mary to the level of Jesus, a divine person, since they see salvation as the work of a sinless person who by His active obedience fulfilled the Law, but we know they degrade Jesus to a human person.

The truth that our ancestors passed on to us is that His and His Mother's work, full of grace, are an appeal to God's free mercy. His entire life was a life of sacrifice, voluntarily submitting and uniting Himself to our human nature and divinizing Himself so that we can be partakers of the divine nature in Him. As a divine person with human nature, only He can self-sanctify Himself and redeem human nature from death, becoming the Way; no sinless human person can ever do so. They require a redeemer as much as we do, since works do not save; both salvation and deification require grace.

Enjoy this snip from the comments of an old blog. I recommend you read the conversation between Jonathan and Robert:

>I can’t speak for Nick, but having looked over what you said several times, I think the entire problem comes down to the phrase “as a Spirit-filled human being.” I cannot identify any orthodox, Chalcedonian interpretation for that phrase, and I agree with both you and Nick that the description accurately portrays the view of Reformed theology on this point.

>I would characterize your view of kenosis as being identical to that of the Spanish Adoptionist Elipandus. He likewise believed that Christ had emptied Himself of His divine power so as to act as a human person filled with grace and the Spirit, just like another adopted Son. So while He never ceased to be a divine person, through the depths of kenosis, he nonetheless lived out the grace-filled life of an adopted son.

>Now it has been argued that Spanish Adoptionism was not technically Nestorian, and that is probably true. Elipandus, at least, affirmed that there was always ever a single divine person who, by the mystery of kenosis, also lived out the life of an adopted son. Cavadini has pretty convincingly argued that this likely did not come from Nestorian thought, even as mediated by contact with Muslims in Spain. But I don’t think that actually saves the view, because it shares with Nestorianism this idea of Christ acting as a Spirit-filled human being, a man united to God by grace and God’s good will (eudokia), an adopted son. Even if one affirms the single personhood of Christ, it is this idea of Christ as a grace-endowed human being who performs acts of obedience before God in Adam’s place that is the characteristic error of the Nestorian heresy. That is also, by the way, a belief that the Nestorians share with the Pelagians (i.e., that Christ’s grace-enabled human works established His righteousness before God), which is why Nestorian works were condemned as Pelagian in Rome.

>Again, I’m really trying here, but I have no idea how “as a Spirit-filled human being” can be reconciled with Christ being the Son of God. He just flat out isn’t a Spirit-filled human being; He is the Son of God with a divinized human nature.

Edit: Formatting.

I'm sure you'll get sarcastic remarks about "just read the Bible" (which, as a Reformed Baptist [charismatic] I'd agree with) but I think you're looking for solid theological interactions on the issue. In some ways, I think these are good starter books for not only the issue at hand (baptism) but also how it fits within the larger theological vision of the Christian life and community. Baptism is one of those issues that, for being seemingly simple, reveals a great deal about how one understands the nature of faith, the entire Christian life, and the nature of the Gospel itself. Just taking a guess, but I assume you're approaching it from the sobriety that the issue deserves given your reading thus far, so I commend you for looking for further resources on the topic and continuing to read!

Here are a few that are good starters, and for more reading, I'd look to their bibliographies and footnotes.

Believer's Baptism - This is a good resource. There are a few points here or there where I'd disagree with various articles. I'd want to emphasize different aspects here or there, but especially at points where the covenants (Covenant Theology v. New Covenant Theology) becomes the issue. So, good starter, and the basic presentation of a thoughtful credo-baptist view.

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology - Taking up that point of covenant theology, this is a very thorough book on how the covenants play within a Reformed Baptist view of baptism. Very good.

Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants

Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer

The Confessing Baptist - This is a website and podcast. A good resource for articles and podcasts on various issues related to Reformed Baptists.

If you're looking for one book, I'd go with Believer's Baptism, and supplement with materials available at The Confessing Baptist website. That'll get your versed in the logic of the credo-baptist position, and hopefully provide some good things to mull over.

Hope that helps!

Well, there are a lot of alternatives. The typical Calvinist approach is technically not substitutionary atonement, but rather penal satisfaction theory.

Penal satisfaction is the idea that in order to be just, God must pour out his wrath upon the unrighteous. In order for God to be just, God sent his son to the earth to satisfy his wrath in punishing Jesus instead of us. In the end God sends Jesus to save us from God.

Jesus' death can be substitutionary without looking like that. People have told me that it can be "penal" without looking like that as well, but I'm not sure how that works. The major alternatives are governmental theory, ransom theory, Christus victor, and moral influence theory.

In relation to better ways of understanding substitutionary atonement, one of my favorite quotes from Tim Keller is this section from The Reason for God,

>Forgiveness means refusing to make them pay for what they did. However to refrain from lashing out at someone when you want to do so with all your being is agony. It is a form of suffering. You not only suffer the original loss of happiness, reputation, and opportunity, but now forgo the consolation of inflicting the same on them. You are absorbing the debt, taking the cost of it completely on yourself instead of taking it out of the other person. It hurts terribly. Many people would say it feels like a kind of death. Yes, but it is a death that leads to resurrection instead of the lifelong living death of bitterness and cynicism.

>Forgiveness means bearing the cost instead of making the wrongdoer do it, so you can reach out in love to seek your enemy's renewal and change. Forgiveness means absorbing the debt of the sin yourself. Everyone who forgives great evil goes through a death into resurrection and experiences nails, blood, sweat and tears.

>Should it surprise us, then, that when God determined to forgive us rather than punish us for all the ways we have wronged him and one another, that he went to the Cross in the person of Jesus Christ and died there? ... On the Cross we see God doing visibly and cosmically what every human being must do to forgive someone, though on an infinitely greater scale

I don't think the answer is throwing away substitutionary atonement. I found what Scot McKnight had to offer in the introduction to A Community Called Atonement to be very helpful.

> At a dinner table one night a companion asked me which of my golf clubs was my favorite. I had never been asked that question, and it stuck me as odd. My answer went something like this. When I'm at 150 yards, I like to "knock down" my 7-iron. When I'm at 200 yards and there is no wind, I like my 3-iron. When I'm on the tee box, if the fairway is open, I like my driver. On the green, I like my putter. When I'm in the bunker around a green, I like my sand wedge. When I'm at 80 yards and in the fairway, I like my lob wedge. So, I said to him, I don't have a favorite club. I use all fourteen clubs in my bag.

> But I once played with a man who did have a favorite club. And it was the only club he carried. That solitary club had to be adjusted so that it could be flat like a putter and angled like irons. The reason he had only one club was that, in his own words, "I'm too lazy to carry a bag of clubs." You can guess that he wasn't a very good golfer, but I must admit that he did pretty well for being a "one-clubber."

I think we need to realize that there are many images of the atonement in the Bible, and they each offer a different perspective on what the cross means for us and the world.

The Map is not the Territory

Metaphors usually reference The Thing Itself. If I use a metaphor for something, I can often break it down with technical language to get at The Thing Itself. When using metaphors to talk about God, however, the Thing Itself is something Other.

The shift for me was realizing that doctrines, what I think most people consider "technical language" about God, are in themselves metaphors.

This concept has been helpful to me because it allows me to recognize that if doctrines are metaphors, and all metaphors fail at some point, so do all doctrines. I can accept articulations of say, certain atonement theories I generally find abhorrent, with the stipulation that the metaphor has many limitations.

Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski coined the phrase, "The map is not the territory". "A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of a territory, but a map is not the territory". I think this can lend a lot to our understanding of atonement (and doctrines in general).

Penal satisfaction, substitutionary atonement, governmental theory, Christus victor, and moral influence theory may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the truth of the cross, but the map is not the territory.

If this is the case then the recently shared Lifehouse video is just as much (if not more) an accurate and true portrayal of the atonement than even the most rigorous systematic theology.

Book Recommendations

I've found two books to be most helpful to me in thinking about the atonement. The first is the previously mentioned book by Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement. It's helpful because it not only articulates the theories handed to us by scripture and tradition, but it also advocates a position that uses the whole bag of golf clubs as opposed to being a one-clubber.

The second is Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross with editor Mark D. Baker. The book contains a variety of essays by different pastors and theologians, each expressing a different contemporary articulation of the atonement coming out of different contexts.

They're both pretty accessible reads and not too long, but they both put forth a lot of powerful ideas and I found them very helpful.

This is a very interesting question. It's not the top 5 Reformed Theologians, but the Top 5 Reformed Theologians you can learn from, which is a rather different question. The answer will depend on where you are in your own spiritual and theological journey as much as it does on the characteristics of the theologians listed. My suggestions, with an eye for gentle introductions to their work instead of throwing you straight into their magnus opus:

• R.C. Sproul: He wasn't a particularly original thinker, but his great gift was making theology accessible to the everyday man (or woman). First read: Chosen by God.
  
• John Calvin: Still the giant of Reformed Theology. He can be intimidating, but it's not as hard as you might think. First read: A Little Book on the Christian Life.
  
• Herman Bavinck: In my mind the most important Reforme Theologian since Calvin. First read: Our Reasonable Faith
  
• G.K. Berkouwer: For decades, his Studies in Dogmatics column and book series was the standard resource for Reformed clergy and laity seeking to understand complex theological topics. First read: any of the Studies in Dogmatics book, but particularly, The Person of Christ.
  
• Abraham Kuyper: The former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, famous for opposing secularism and modernism, and for proclaiming the Lordship of Christ over all Creation. First read: Lectures on Calvinism
  
  It is also an absolute must to read carefully the Reformed Confessions, including the Heidelburg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms
  
  You can also avail yourself of the /r/Reformed Recommended Reading list compiled by /u/peasantcore which has many excellent books.
  
  All of the authors I listed above have passed into glory. If you would be interesting in living Reformed authors, I would recommend, among many others, Michael Allen, Todd Billings, James K.A. Smith, Timothy Keller, and Al Wolters.
  
  

Lol that's him, although that's a very unflattering introduction to him. He's not good in debate, but his Bible Geek podcast is really interesting even if you disagree with him. As far as NT minimalists go, he's who most people on the sub (myself included) would recommend.

Unlike Carrier and friends, he isn't dogmatic and doesn't overstate his case, The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems is a good example.

Also now that I think about it, he did actually translate the NT and other works used by the early church in the Pre-Nicene New Testament, tho I think you might have to get it from us site. He considers himself a cultural Christian, so he's definitely not opposed to Christianity, but he isn't beholden to any particular theology or any of the mythicist theories, so it might be worth checking out. I'm afraid I haven't read it myself though, all I could afford was a free download of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, though I do recommend it — the parallels between the Gospels and other Greco-Roman literature are really interesting.

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

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

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

>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

• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas & Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne
  
• The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
  
• The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell
  
• The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig
  
  Presentations
  
  
• Gary Habermas - "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection."
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "The Resurrection"
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Evidence for the Resurrection"
  
  
• Doug Powell - "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
  
  Debates
  
  Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
  
  YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
  
  >if you don't like my tone
  
  I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha

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

That is a difficult question to answer, since each term (conservative, evangelical, biblical scholar) can be defined differently. If you use the example of the Evangelical Theological Society, there will be approximately 2000 people attending their national meeting in November, presenting some 350 papers. But some of those papers might not be considered "conservative" by people who are far more right-wing and they might not be considered "scholarly" by people who attend Society of Biblical Literature meetings, which also meet in November and attract more like 13,000 (along with AAR and a slew of other affiliate groups).

Take as a specific example, Darrell Bock (link to Wikipedia for bibliography). He is at home presenting papers at both ETS and SBL, He was president of ETS in 2001. Bock has published conservative commentaries on Luke and Acts, an important A Theology of Luke and Acts, as well as both scholarly and popular books on historical Jesus. He edited Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, a major contribution to historical Jesus studies published by Eerdmans. Since he teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, most would consider him conservative scholar, but his work might be dismissed as "too liberal" by the greater constituency of DTS, and too conservative because he accepts Luke as the author of Luke-Acts and thinks Acts reports accurate history.

Another example is N. T. Wright. He is clearly not an evangelical in the American sense of the word and he is clearly a biblical scholar. But he can be fairly described as conservative when compared to someone like Bart Ehrman. Some of his positions on social issues might even strike some as quite conservative. He is also quite popular with the ETS types, although mostly so they can write books about how wrong he is in justification.

Not sure I answered the question, hopefully this helps clarify the issue.

Resources:

Douglas Wilson (The most identifiable of the proponents of Federal Vision, but I'd say actually not so representative of it).

> Reformed is not Enough

> To a Thousand Generations

> Back to Basics

> A Study Guide to Calvin's Institutes

James Jordan

> Primeval Saints

> The Law of the Covenant

> The Glory of Kings (Not Jordan himself, but his Festschrift)

P. Andrew Sandlin

> A Faith that is Never Alone (He edited this volume)

> Backbone of the Bible (He edited this as well, which includes John Frame)

Rich Lusk

> Paedofaith

Tim Gallant

> These are Two Covenants

Peter Leithart

> A House for My Name

> The Baptized Body

> Commentary on 1&2 Kings

> The Kingdom and the Power

> Christology Ancient and Modern (He has an essay in here)

> Priesthood of the Plebs (This is his dissertation. Just read it. It's basically wonderful)

Internet Resources

> http://www.federal-vision.com/

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision

> http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/

> http://dougwils.com/

Books on Federal Vision

Pro:

> The Federal Vision

Neutral:

> The Auburn Avenue Theology

Against:

> The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology

> Federal Vision

> Calvin and the Federal Vision

At the core of the whole controversy is a man named Norman Shepherd. He is not typically thrown in with the Federal Vision proper, but they all use his insights. Here are his two books:

> The Call of Grace

> The Way of Righteousness

Norman Shepherd was a tenured professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (in Philadelphia) and they fired him for "doctrinal reasons." Or at least, that's what those who slander him would like to believe. The Justification controversy has been awash in haziness and misinformation. There are two main accounts, taking opposite perspectives.

> The Current Justification Controversy

> Trust and Obey

I would also suggest the Festschrift for Norman Shepherd.

> Obedient Faith (Difficult to find)

The basic gist is this:

John Murray, Norman Shepherd, and Meredith Kline are on a continuum.

Meredith Kline----------John Murray-----------Norman Shepherd.

Most people tend to side with Kline, but they insist on calling Shepherd a heretic.

> i will look into those blogs, you seem to have some really interesting topics going.

Thank you very much!

Like I mentioned before, I'd highly recommend you check out Thomas Merton at some point, especially "New Seeds of Contemplation". You will love him, I promise. Also, if you have checked these out, I bet you'd appreciate "Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu: The Parallel Sayings", and "Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings".

I have a four-way tie for best mariology.

In no particular order:

Marian Mystery by Denis Farkasfalvy

Queen Mother by Ted Sri

Daughter Zion by Joseph Ratzinger

Mariology by Matthias Joseph Scheeben



If you're looking for books directed at a more popular audience (i.e. if you're not a theologian), then the following are very good:

Behold your Mother by Tim Staples

Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn




EDIT: Here's a great bibliography my professor made for a mariology course.


EDIT: Just as a caveat, my interest in mariology is mostly biblical. Apparitions aren't a huge interest of mine. So the above reflects that. Though there's plenty on dogmatic/systematic mariology there too.

Check out the blog of Ben Myers, a theology professor at United Theological College. He has some cool posts on the Trinity.

You have probably exposed yourself to many primary patristic sources on the Trinity, so here are some secondary sources.

• The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity: The Cambridge Companions series is excellent. This volume represents a rich collection of essays (and bibliographies for further study).
  
  
• Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology by Lewis Ayres
  
  
• The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology by Kevin Miles
  
  May help round out non-Western understandings:
  
  
• The Trinity in Asian Perspective
  
  
• The Trinity: Global Perspectives

If you're interested, Professor Todd Lawson has written a book on the subject, "The Crucifixion and the Qur'an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought". A copy is available online here.

A blurb for the book says: "Accentuating the neutrality of the Qur’an’s position, it is suggested that over successive centuries the discussion of the crucifixion within the Islamic tradition was proportionately evolved to accommodate the doctrine of denial in a way which obscured the neutrality of the original Qur’anic position."

Page 25 of the free pdf version states this succinctly as "The point is that tafsir, not the Qur'an, denies the crucifixion. The Qur'an's assertion that the Jews did not crucify Jesus - wa ma salabuhu - is obviously different from saying that Jesus was not crucified - wa ma suliba. The first phrase is Qur'anic, the latter is found nowhere in the Book."

So far I've only read part of the introduction, but the entire book (278 pages) seems very worth reading as an exposition and history of Muslim thought on the topic, which appears much more diverse and dynamic than one might initially suppose. The author is a Baha'i, but the Faith is only mentioned briefly in a footnote on page 191.

Happy to help. Here are some links I'd recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Orthodox-Dogmatic-Deification/dp/1885652410/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=dumitru+staniloae&qid=1564128511&s=gateway&sprefix=dumtru&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Mystery-Jesus-Christ/dp/088141249X/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=st+maximus&qid=1564128542&s=gateway&sr=8-3

https://www.amazon.com/Origen-Alexandria-St-Maximus-Confessor/dp/1581122616/ref=mp_s_a_1_34?keywords=st+maximus&qid=1564128599&s=gateway&sr=8-34

Also I can't reccomend this poetry enough

https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Eros-Theologian-Popular-Patristics/dp/0881413496/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=symeon+the+new+theologian&qid=1564128667&s=gateway&sprefix=syme&sr=8-2

St Maximus the Confessor is some one well studied in Greek philosophy too, he was the secretary of the Byzantine emperor and a highly educated noble born man from Constantinople who's father was in the courts of the medevial Roman Empire before he was born.

He was persecuted by that emperor after he left his job, became a monk in Tunisia, and wrote massive amounts of theology, classical Greek philosophy, and condemnations of the heresies that the Byzantine emperor was supporting. The Orthodoxy of St Maximus the Confessor would be decided at the 6th ecumenical council. St. Maximus draws on Origen and Clement of Alexandria a lot, Clement is a philospher in the same situation as Origen.

I'm not saying you have to agree with st Maximus on his disagreements with Origen, despite their agreements, but I do and it might be worth checking out if you are intersted.

A good book would be the Cosmological Mystery of Christ by st Maximus the Confessor.

Or this book focused on both Maximus and Origen.

https://www.amazon.com/Origen-Alexandria-St-Maximus-Confessor/dp/1581122616

The similarities of the crucifixion and resurrection to pagan stories are usually overstated.

Richard Carrier has one book out and another on the way addressing the issue from a more scholarly direction. Proving History is the first book. The second is due out in a few months if I remember correctly.

Robert M. Price also has a good work on the subject. The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems

Start with those two. They both have talks on YouTube about the historicity of the gospels. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm utterly convinced, but they are pretty compelling. Carrier and Eherman have had a bit of a feud over the issue and again, Carrier seems to have the better argument.

I don't want to insult you by implying that you are ignorant as you did to me. Let me just say this, I am very well read on both subjects. Religious studies is the obsession of my life. In fact I am married to a woman who is a professor of comparative religious studies because she was one of the very few people I could have a decent conversation with about these subjects. I don't want to spend the whole night looking up references to prove something to you. I would invite you to study the similarities between the teachings of these two masters. I have a feeling that you wont. If you sounded a bit less hostile and even remotely willing to learn, I would have walked you through it point-by-point.

I was once just as sure as you are that they were totally different messages. I probably would have gotten angry just like you if those assumptions were challenged. I understand there are massive differences between how the religions that they spawned operate and the official Dogma of those bodies.

I will leave you with just one book that makes my argument in a simple and concise way. You can choose whether you would like to investigate it yourself or not.

I'm not implying I'm smarter than you. I simply had the right person come along, at the right time and show me the similarities. He recommended some books. I read them and now it's impossible for me not to recognize. It's hard to see through all the noise that surrounds both of these religions especially Christianity. you have to remember that their own followers can't even agree on what they really were trying to say.

I guess the choice will hinge on whether your desire for knowledge is greater than your desire to be right.


Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (Seastone) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1569751692/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_qQq-BbZC87AP9

http://www.rbap.net/our-books/recovering-a-covenantal-heritage-essays-in-baptist-covenant-theology-edited-by-richard-c-barcellos-ph-d/

https://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Baptistic-Perspective-Covenants/dp/1599253429

http://www.rbap.net/our-books/the-distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

http://www.rbap.net/our-books/covenant-theology-from-adam-to-christ-by-nehemiah-coxe-and-john-owen/

https://www.amazon.com/Lifetimes-When-Jesus-Buddha-Other/dp/1401923151/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-2&keywords=jesus+and+buddha

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Parallel-Sayings-Seastone/dp/1569751692/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-1&keywords=jesus+and+buddha

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-20th-Anniversary/dp/159448239X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523666138&sr=1-3&keywords=jesus+and+buddha

I was just talking to friend about this yesterday. I believe that PSA is scriptural and Biblical, while also being sensitive to how it has been misused and misunderstood in church history. That being said, I think view the atonement only as PSA misses a large part of the picture. I think you need a multifaceted view of the atonement that has PSA, Christus victor, and even Moral Influence. Read Scott McKnights book A Community Called Atonement where he makes the argument to understand atonement, you need multiple models.

It seems as though your only source, that isn't the bible, is Bart Ehrman. In fact, almost everything that you've written on the subject is almost verbatim Ehrman's own phrasing, especially this little gem which Ehrman has never provided any evidence for:

> Each and every one of these scholars with a teaching position at a university not only believes that Jesus existed...

So, either you are Ehrman or you've read a single book that validates your viewpoints and have begun a crusade on r/atheism.

I will see your one, single source, and raise you 2 additional doctorates in the field that disagree directly with Ehrman:

On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier, PhD Ancient History

The Messiah Myth by Thomas Thompson, PhD Theology who also was a professor of religious studies at a few universities despite the incessant assertions of both yourself and Ehrman that every single scholar in a teaching position believes the same as you.

The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert Price, PhD Systematic Theology and PhD New Testament yet another professor of religion at a university.