>The statements you made before this one, about what each gospel author wrote, similarities and differences, are factual statements. This conclusion on what it "seems" is an opinion, even if it is an opinion "based on evidence."

All rational conclusions are opinions drawn from evaluation of evidence or premises. I use words such as seem, appear, or suggest, to allow for some element of inconclusivity when making assertions about authorial intention or other elusive subjects. We don’t know, for example, why the author of the Gospel of Luke omitted instances of Jesus experiencing emotions like compassion and anger, but we can reasonably argue that Luke may have considered such depictions inconsistent with his conception of the Son of God, or, possibly, he was concerned with what his readers might extrapolate from a God who displays emotion.

It’s hard to say for sure; Luke’s motivation could have been something else entirely. What we do know, is that Luke made conscious editorial decisions when incorporating Mark’s material into his own gospel, and that these conclusions make sense of the available data. Based on the evidence, textual-analysis, and logical reasoning, one can eliminate certain incorrect interpretations of the data easier than locking down a definitive conclusion.

>But even if it is fully correct that Luke was intentionally sending a different message about the meaning of Jesus' life and death... There is a difference between "they have two different messages" and "there is no conceivable way to combine the two into a coherent single message," much less "the two contradict each other."

Much of this semantic quibbling preoccupied with the meaning and appropriate use of terms such as message. I would argue that Luke and Mark have different soteriological concepts which are, on some significant points, at odds with one another. This is not to say that they don’t have substantial commonalities.

I’ve never made a statement like, “there is no conceivable way to combine the two into a coherent single message" because I realize that Christian apologists and theologians conceive numerous ways to reconcile, harmonize, and gloss over such difficulties. My criticism of their efforts is that they don’t make the best, most reasonable sense of the data. Furthermore, I would contend that apologetics and harmonizing is ultimately motivated by a felt need to protect an untenable belief about the nature and origin of the Bible, (i.e., their doctrine of scripture and the inextricable concepts of its infallibility and inerrancy), and is not prompted by a desire to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

In practice, people effectively harmonize the differences between the gospels all the time. Most are unaware that Mark and Luke have different soteriologies; that Matthew and Luke have conflicting infancy narratives; and that John has no parables and changes the essential message of Jesus from that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Some Christians argue that such differences are complementary, the authors only highlighting portions of the story left out by the other writers. This is, technically, a “conceivable way to combine [the multiple accounts] into a coherent single message,” but is it the best, most rational way to make sense of the readily apparent differences? Would someone draw the same conclusion if they didn’t have so much at stake? If they didn’t already assume that the Bible was supernaturally inspired? It’s a considerable, rationally-indefensible bias which Christians must overcome.


>… it makes more sense to me, and is more of an evidence of veracity, for there to be noticeable differences between authors than for the versions to be suspiciously in lock-step as if someone intentionally modified them to make them match up better.

>Confusion and/or contradiction would be for example if gospel 1 & 2 say Jesus came to pour out His blood for the sins of many, Gospel 3 says Jesus was incorporeal and didn't actually have blood or a body, and Gospel 4 says Jesus is Ba'als son by Asherah and demands you worship at your nearest temple prostitute.

From comparing the two gospels, it’s evident that Mark considered Jesus’ death to be atonement for sin while Luke did not, though he did think it necessary to fulfill God’s plan of salvation. You’re free to dismiss this difference as inconsequential and easily reconciled. Much of the divergences between the biblical texts are of this sort, small but significant theological disparities and narrative contradictions which present multiple interpretations and accounts.

>The "textual elements" -- Differences, similarities, incongruities, changes, omissions, recurrent words and themes -- are facts. The explanation "posited" is an opinion, no matter how closely it looks at the facts in coming to those conclusions. Do all textual critics agree perfectly on their conclusions? Or at least all "true" textual critics?

Unanimity is hard to come by due to the complexity of the issues but it’s not required for one to draw conclusions. You don’t seem to understand that a conclusion is an explanation based upon premises and evidence. You’re equivocating about terms which can be used synonymously, i.e., an explanation, opinion, belief, or judgment can all appropriate be identified as a conclusion in the right context.

>… it strikes me as pretentious to say that Bible students' opinion that they are revealing different faces of a coherent single truth is, in your eyes, proven false by textual critics' opinion that there is some alternate motive at play behind the differences.

I don’t know that I can make the difference between the armchair theologian and the biblical scholar apparent enough for me to persuade you that some positions are more rational than others. You would need some more info besides what little I can effectively articulate here.

I do appreciate that fact that from your perspective, the book I recommend is equally as suspect as religious propaganda. That’s a fair expectation. Thankfully, you have to ability to read and evaluate for yourself. Should you so choose, you could take that Book of Mormon, peruse it, study its origins, and determine the reasonableness of the positions held about it by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Likewise, you can look at the text of the Bible and assess what the best rational explanation for its origin and nature. Until you’re aware of the “textual elements” to which I’ve alluded, you’re ill-equipped to make an evaluation.

If you’re interest in textual-criticism, you can check out Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, despite its sensationalist title, it’s a good, popular introduction to the field. As to be expected, there are apologetic responses to Ehrman's claims. If you like, read the book and a response, and determine which makes the most compelling case.

> I just want to research it as much as possible before I commit myself.

Here are some resources that were recommended by users on this subreddit. Check out the ones that you might be interested in.

---

___INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM____

• [Video] The DeenShow - a talk show that introduces many of the basic teachings of Islam and addresses common misconceptions. Their website here.
  
  
• [Book] The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam - Yahiya Emerick, Ignore the title, it's actually a decent clear-English guide to explaining what Islam is about and it's practices.
  
  
• [Video] The Purpose of Life - Khalid Yasin, gives a comprehensive lecture on the fundamental question that every human being must ask: "What is the purpose of life?"
  
  
• [Web] What is Islam? - Jamaal Zarabozo, if you're looking for a more brief introduction to the fundamental beliefs and practices of the Islamic faith, then try this free book.
  
  
• [Audio] Guide for the New Muslim - Jamaal Zarabozo, a convert with experience, explains the general understanding of Islam and some of the basic practices in this extensive 12-part talk. Alternative link.
  
  
• [Book] A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam - I. A. Ibrahim, contains proofs that the Qur'an is the literal word of God along with scientific miracles in the Qur'an with illustrations.
  
  
• [Video] Foundations of Islam -Hamza Yusuf, discusses Quran compilation & preservation, articles of faith, ihsan, and the signs of the Last Day.
  
  
• [Video] Understanding Islam Video Series - Abdal Hakim Murad, discusses the Qur'anic view of Christianity & Jesus, historical Muslim tolerance of Jews, free will vs. determinism, the problem of evil, etc.
  
  ---
  QURAN
  
  
• [Web] Quran - The Noble Quran in various translations.
  
  
• [Book] Quran - Abdel Haleem, if you're looking for the Quran in book form, this is argued to be the easiest to understand translation in the English language. Preview it online.
  
  
• [Book] Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations - Michael Anthony Sells, this book captures the complexity, power and poetry of the last chapters of the Quran.
  
  
  ---
  ____LIFE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD____
  
  
• [Video] Biography of Muhammad (pbuh) Video Series - Yasir Qadhi, detailed, very lengthy biography video series. A condensed video series here.
  
  
• [Book] Muhammad Man and Prophet: A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam - Adil Salahi, from birth in the Arabian desert to the triumph of Islam and its gaining a permanent hold on Arabia.
  
  
• [Book] Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources - Martin Lings, very detailed and thorough biography based on the earliest sources. Recommended by many, (but relies on a few unauthentic sources).
  
  
• [Audio] The Life of the Prophet Muhammad - Hamza Yusuf, brilliant narration that was originally presented in a twelve week course based on the above book by Martin Lings.
  
  
• [Book] Muhammad (Critical Lives) - Yahiya Emerick, a simple concise, informative biography.
  
  
  ---
  
  CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND ISLAM
  
  
• [Video] How the Bible Led Me to Islam - Joshua Evans, former Christian youth minister conveys his journey to Islam.
  
  
• [Book] The Cross & The Crescent - Jerald Dirks, former minister (deacon) of the United Methodist Church explains how coherent Islam is with the roots of Christianity, provided with verifiable proofs.
  
  
• [Video] Early Christianity From Jesus to Muhammad - Jerald Dirks, discusses the roots of Christianity and the transition to the emergence of Muslims.
  
  
• [Book] MisGod'ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance in the Abrahamic Religions - Laurence Brown, examines Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for truth in revelation, and trace the chain of revelation to its logical conclusion.
  
  
• [Video] Misquoting Jesus in the Bible - Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman discusses Bible inaccuracies and how certain Christian beliefs, like Trinity, developed over time. His book 'Misquoting Jesus' here.
  
  
  
• [Book] Understanding Islam: A Guide for the Judaeo-Christian Reader - Jerald Dirks, holds Master's degree in Divinity from Harvard University, offers a timely correct alternative to understanding Islam.
  
  ---
  ____ATHEISM AND ISLAM____
  
  
• [Video] The Purpose of Life - Jeffrey Lang explains how he came to Islam after being an Atheist.
  
  
• [Book] Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America - Jeffery Lang, a former atheist, takes the reader along the path by discussing conflicts between faith and reason.
  
  
• [Book] Struggling To Surrender : Some Impressions of an American Convert to Islam - Former atheist, Jeffery Lang, gives a personal account of his search for God when he found out that his inherited religious beliefs could no longer answer his questions.
  
  
• [Video] From Strong Atheist To Islam - Tim, a former atheist used to debate religious people and tried to convince them that there is no God, until he met a Muslim.
  
  
• [Video] God: Delusion or Truth? - Hamza Tzortzis & AbdurRaheem Green, how can we prove the existence of God and what this means for humanity.
  
  ---
  
  ____MISCELLANEOUS____
  
  
  
• [Book] The Road to Mecca - Muhammad Asad tells of his initial rejection of all institutional religions, his entree into Taoism, his fascinating travels as a diplomat, and finally his embrace of Islam.
  
  
• [Book] The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X - Malcolm X explains his journey which leads him to Islam. Arguably the best autobiography in the English Language.
  
  
• [Book] The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims - Nathan Lean, Using terms like: “stealth jihad,” “creeping Sharia,” “Islamofascism,” and other techniques used to scare the public are discussed.
  
  
• [Book] Who Speaks For Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think -John L. Esposito, what do the world’s Muslims think about the West, or about democracy, or about extremism itself?
  
  
  
• [Gift Pack] Muslim Now Welcome Pack - (UK ONLY), includes the popular 'Fortress of The Muslim' along with other free material.
  
  
• [Misc] Order Literature & Visit Mosque - (USA) WhyIslam provides free literature, can help arrange a visit to a mosque and can answer questions you may have by online Chat.
  
  ---
  
  Complete list here.

I have tried twice to reply, and reddit somehow vaporized the post both times. Hopefully this one will work.

Two things stand out in your comments. 1. You seem exceptionally comfortable in your assumptions, and 2. Your knowledge gaps are huge. I make these observations not condescendingly, but matter of factly.

As mentioned prior, you seem an individual who is comfortable believing what you want to believe -- as opposed to the type of individual willing to pursue truth at all costs, even at the cost of comfort or happiness.

Placing comfort over truth is not necessarily a disastrous life choice; because there is no higher arbiter, happiness is the paramount thing. Many people can (and do) live happily ever after while embracing basic falsehoods as truths. Wisdom is not a prerequisite for happiness; indeed, in some cases it may even be an impediment to it.

With that said, IF you are interested in truth -- and in filling in your knowledge gaps -- I would suggest the following books:

• Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
  
• On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson (everyone in the world should read this book)
  
• The True Believer by Eric Hoffer
  
  Also, on the subject of hell, you may find this article interesting: http://bible-truths.com/lake5.html
  
  It was written by a committed Xian (as you seem to be), and as I once was many years ago. The bible is like the sweater in Weezer's sweater song; if you yank on any of the loose threads with brutal honesty, and have the doggedness to keep yanking, it is only a matter of time before the sweater comes undone.
  
  As Morpheus offered Neo, one might say that truth is the red pill and comfort is the blue pill. Which you swallow, and where your life goes from here, is up to you. As mentioned, I was a deeply committed Xian myself at one time -- but many years ago I chose the red pill, and many years later I can say I did not regret it.
  
  Good luck on your journey...

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a wonderful and much more complete picture of where we stand in textual criticism of the Bible.

And what the author fails to point out is that if you take the best translations of the best texts (many not available when the King James Version was written) and compare them, you just don't get that many differences.

The King James is often more poetically written, even with some slight inaccuracies in the process.

As a theist, I find the process of textual criticism fascinating, and it reinforces my belief that the very heart of Christianity isn't in its theology, but in the First and Second Commandments (as reportedly taught by Christ):

• Love God with all your heart
  
• Love your neighbor as yourself
  
  Nothing there about making my neighbor conform to my morals and ethics. Everything there about me treating my neighbor with respect and honor, as I would want to be treated myself. Coupled with other teachings of Jesus, and clearly the idea that we are supposed to police the behavior of others is not Christian, despite any issues of textual criticism. We are instead to police ourselves.
  
  Edit tl;dr: Anyone who invests heavily into theological concepts that hinge on just a word or two in these texts is already playing with fire. On the other hand, committing to the core ethical and moral teachings in these texts is pretty safe.
  

The point of my comparison was: It seems unstructured to me. And I am often confused by that lack of rules moderates live by.

I constantly meet people who consider themselves Christian or Muslim or whatever but do not follow the rules of that religion. For instance a good friend of mine who is a Catholic, like many american's, believes the sacrament is symbolically the body and blood of Christ and also uses contraception. These are big no-nos for a Catholic. Another friend is Muslim and he loves bacon and also uses contraception and does not believe his daughter should grow up thinking herself less than a male.

Essentially, these types of people make up the bulk of religious people I meet. So maybe they are a good %age of the religious in america. But effectively they are not religious. They simply believe in a god and pick the rules they want to follow based on a number of different criteria. Those criteria are almost always cultural.

This seems like sentimental (in the philosophical sense) religion to me. Why not drop the religion altogether?

EDIT: have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347757261&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus

There's more to chrisitinty than just the resurrection. What about Adam/Eve? Moses and the Exodus? Pretty much the rest of the OT? I mean, if Adam/Eve never existed, then why the need for Jesus? Basically there's no reason to think they did exist. There's no evidence for them. Same for Moses and the Exodus. No evidence of ~2M people wandering around for 40 yrs. To put that into perspective, that would be like everyone in modern day Austin, Tx picking up and roaming the mid-west without leaving a trace. Can you imagine that? And I don't even need to talk about Noah's flood, do I?

As for your other specifics, #1: There is no contemporary accounts backing up the bible's claim of a resurrection. Nothing about about the temple curtain ripping, an earthquake, the sky going black for 3 hrs, or (and this is one of my fav's) not a PEEP about dead saints coming out of their graves and were "seen by many". All of these were certainly note-worthy events but yet...*crickets*. The historians who do mention are people who lived after Jesus's time and were not eyewitness's. They're just relaying what was told to them and even that can't be considered reliable. The one that Christians like to point out is Josephus where he talks about people worshiping a guy named Jesus. Aside from just saying there were christians, which means nothing because it's like pointing out we have scientologist today, most historians consider that passage a later addition because it doesn't fit within that particular works. Kinda like seeing Darth Vader appear in a Star Trek film.

#2: What were their names? Where do they live? Where's their accounts? 10 million people saw me fly around in the air by me flapping my arms! Must be true because soooo many people saw it. Oh, who are they? Just ... people. No, I don't know any of their names but trust me, they saw it!

See how that works?

#3 & #4: Whether he was even buried by no less than a member of the Jewish high council who was calling for his death just the night before is a matter to cause one to raise their eyebrows but let's go with it. Let's assume he was. Which do you think it more likely: That someone removed the body? Or that he rose from the dead?

#5: Read up on the Heaven's Gate cult. All died for their beliefs but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and declare that there was no UFO waiting for them behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Seriously....if you never heard of it, this was back in '97 so may be before your time, read about it. Then I can point out the 9/11 hijackers. They obviously died for their belief's yet I don't see christians rushing to convert to Islam. I don't doubt the sincerity of their beliefs but that doesn't make it true. I can believe that I can fly if I flap my arms hard enough but something tells me that if I jump off a cliff, gravity is gonna prove that belief off.

There's a lot more to this than what I've written here. Books have been written. I would recommend that, if you're interested, start with anything from Dr. Bart Ehrman. He's the chair of the Theology Dept. at the Univ. of N. Carolina. He's a proper authority on this issue. I've read/listened to pretty much every book he has. Might want to start with "Misquoting Jesus". It's the first book I read from him and the stuff I read in there blew my mind. Stuff that you're not likely gonna hear at your school. There's other accounts of Jesus outside the bible and most christians would certainly clutch their pearls over the "Greater Questions Of Mary" account. There's also numerous Youtube vids of his lectures, talks, and debates. He runs a blog as well that you can access for $25/yr which he's pretty good at updating regularly. Money goes to charity.

Might also want to look up Candida Moss who wrote " The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" She's a NT scholar as well and I learned a lot by reading her book. Like, did you know there were ISIS like groups of christians roaming the area back then? That groups of christians demanded to be killed?

One last book I'd like to recommend is "The Dark Side of Christian History" by Hellen Ellerbe. While I've not found much on her, she does a great job in citing her sources. What will you learn? Know where the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out" came from? While I can't recall the specifics, there was basically two groups of christians fighting and the leader of one, when asked how will we know our own from them, proclaimed to kill them all, God will know his own! This book helps to disabuse people of the notion that christianity has been nothing but loving and caring, not to mention persecuted, through the centuries.

Hope this helps and good luck!

>Yet while he never delineates Gospel specifics (other than the Last Supper, the Crucifixion & Resurrection- three of them you claimed he doesn't)

Sorry, I should have been clearer when I said…

>the only part of the Jesus story Paul does write about, just so happens to match almost exactly the same death and resurrection arc attributed to hundreds of hero warrior gods throughout antiquity

…that this is exactly the part I was referring to. The death and resurrection narrative is, contrary to your assertion, littered throughout ancient folklore.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269831504&sr=1-1

>I suggest you read the early Church Fathers objectively. Seems as if you're actively looking to prove a thesis you already have (that Jesus never existed or that he wasn't what Christians claim he is or whatever). Early Church history is actually quite fascinating.

I couldn't agree more on that—and I'm sorry if I seem 'pre-convinced', because I'm not. The historicity of it is, as you say, truly fascinating stuff. But as I'm sure you'll also concede that doesn't necessarily make any of it true. And I don't mean that in a small way. I mean how, for example, would you explain to someone in 2000 years time what the narrative of the Superman story was supposed to impart, if you were to travel forward in time and arrive in a future where astronomers who could prove there was never a planet Krypton were accused of being selective, or "actively looking to prove a thesis [they] already have"?

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to have noticed by now, incidentally, that I might just as easily say the same about Christianity's truth-claims as you say about mine to the contrary—which I would like to assure you extend much further than having watched merely a few direct-to-web documentaries, however well the one to which you refer to happens to have been made. I was born and raised for the first 16 years of my life a Catholic and "got saved" at around 10 or 11. I've been religion free for the best part of the last 20 years and an atheist since September 11th 2001.

Thanks for the feedback and thoughtful reply! "Condemns most" refers to several indications that the (currently) 2/3rds of the world that does not believe in Jesus will be lost.

 

I do think it's a position reasonably supported by the text. Not that I agree -- I find it morally reprehensible that any "good pagans" and/or the vast billions raised without much exposure to Christianity would be lost due to being born in the wrong place/time. William Lane Craig, a leading apologist, has written a thoroughly repulsive response on the topic: God already knew they'd be lost, so he put them in those places -- and, he says, for all we know, the ratio of saved-to-lost is is perfectly optimal. Ugh!

 

To your point, I'd have a hard time agreeing that Mk 9:40 and Lk 9:50 "whoever is not against us is for us" indicates Jesus believed people could be saved without him. For starters, he contradicts this in Mt 12:30 and Lk 11:23 "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." In context though, both seem to refer to doing miraculous works (casting out demons) and aren't discussing how to be saved at all.

 

In addition, there are ample NT verses saying Jesus saw himself as the only way to be saved:

• Jn 3:18 and Mk 16:16 "whoever believes in Him will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
  
• Jn 14:4 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
  
• Jn 3:36 "whoever does not obey Him does not have life; the wrath of God remains on him"
  
• Mt 7:21-23 "And they will say 'Lord, did we not do many mighty works in your name?' And I will declare 'Depart from me; I never knew you, you workers of lawlessness'"
  
• Mt 7:13-14 "the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."
  
• Acts 4:12 "there is salvation in no one else; there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved"
  
• Jn 17:3 "and this is eternal life: that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"
  
• Rm 3:22-23 "The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. There is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"
  
   
  
  Many contradictory religions claim exclusivity. If Christianity let go of the idea of needing Jesus to be saved, it's a slippery slope to not needing him for anything -- just be a decent person and live your life. But in holding onto the need for Jesus, it ran headlong into another huge problem: if it's all about "accepting God's free gift of love", then a serial rapist can accept Jesus and be fully saved on death row, while a lifelong moral non-theist will go to hell for not accepting the gift. This completely devalues any of our actions and puts all the emphasis on "believing on bad evidence" instead of what you actually do with your life.
  
   
  
  It's all a moot point, however -- as it's likely "Jesus", if he existed, never said most of the things attributed to him, and some epistles attributed to Paul were written pseudonymously also. The whole idea of a "final judgment" wasn't from the Old Testament (which focused largely on earthly kings and national victories); rather, it was borrowed from Zoroastrianism eschatology during Babylonian/Persian captivity, which is around the time the Jews rewrote their national history to better fit their unfortunate circumstances, leading to inclusion in Jewish inter-testamental scripture such as the Book of Enoch, which was accepted as scripture for hundreds of years and was quoted by and influenced the thinking of New Testament writers who were making all this stuff up at the time.
  
   
  
  So, yeah -- who cares what Jesus said anyway, it's a lousy plan that wasn't even original! :-)

Please don't cheapen that word "consensus" with frivolous usage. The origins of religion is a highly contentious topic, and those who study it are absolutely not in full agreement with each other. You are trying to prop up your arguments with the authority of science while denigrating my intelligence. You don't convince people by arguing that way; you only satisfy your urge to crush an opponent.

Here's where we agree, and where you think we disagree:

1. Religion is a natural phenomenon.
   
2. Religion has been a part of human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.
   
   There. Half your post wasn't necessary, Mr./Ms. Read-More-Carefully.
   
   Where we disagree:
   You think religion... "exists because people believe the immaterial intentional entities (minds without bodies, gods.)" In a related concept, you indicate that we naturally ascribe agency to the natural world.
   
   Just so this is abundantly clear: I was arguing that gods are not required for religion. You misread Buddhism is but one example. "Most" Buddhists isn't "all" Buddhists, and "involves" is a far cry from "being the central element of the religion that defines its existence." Many totemic religions from tribal societies also lack gods. You end up having to redefine "gods" to "any supernatural agent" just to get this idea to work.
   
   But let's focus on the idea that it's natural for us to impose agency to things in the natural world, and this leading to the formation of religion. This also is not done in every religion. When it is done, it isn't relevant to every aspect of the religion in question. Even among Christianity, a great deal of worship is devoted to the saints, who were entirely human. Ditto with ancestor worship in Taoism.
   
   We have also seen the rise of new religions, and we know for a fact this idea of ascribing agency to the natural world was not involved in the creation of many of them: Scientology, or the various cults that are centred around extra terrestrials, or people from the future, or not eating (seriously!)
   
   Finally, it doesn't explain why we have the ability to feel transcendence; that feeling we get when our individuality melts away and we "give ourselves" to something greater. Where does that come from? How does that evolve?
   
   But for the sake of completeness, you would likely need to hear an alternative, so here is where I'm coming from. I ascribe to Emile Durkheim's theory of religion. He's a classic sociologist, and formally founded the field of sociology itself.
   
   Just to provide the brief gist:
   
   His definition of religion: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
   
   The faithful believe in a force that is outside of themselves, and greater than themselves that enters into them usually during moments of collective ritual, giving them the feeling of transcendence. All religions have this force. It is often called a "god," though other terms are used (mana, ch'i, etc.) This force is the "energy," if you will, of the society of the faithful. In other words, god and society... are one and the same. Society is exterior to the individual, and greater than him. If you denigrate this symbol of their society, you are denigrating the society itself, and they will react accordingly. The morals preached by the religion are the morals that the society unifies under. They hold rituals to reinforce this collective bond, and that is really its purpose. Some things are made sacred (objects, values, people), and the community collects around those things, which become a sort of emblem. Rationality will serve the purpose of the community's religion. And, as I initially stated in my first post, the religion of the day will change as the needs of the society changes. Sometimes the religion itself alters, and other times it is simply abandoned for another one.
   
   We see religious behaviour in cruder moments all the time. The feeling of transcendence occurs among soldiers that fight and die together. They often describe their individuality melting away and becoming "whole" with their brothers in arms. They create a small system of morals and beliefs that are specific just to them. And they even sometimes have rituals.
   
   The same religious behaviour can be seen in revolutionaries who rationalize their oppressors as the ultimate evil. Or in nationalistic patriotism (why does a flag make someone cry? Why does it matter what the founding fathers thought?). Or college fraternities with their initiations and pledges. Or the obsession with all things natural and organic, and neo druidism, and Gwenyth Paltrow getting people to stick odd things up their vaginas. Or Trump supports who see Donald Trump as their saviour from the evils that plague them.
   
   We have evolved the innate ability to unite under an emblem and operate as a cohesive whole. That is religion, and no other animal seems to have it. It's the evolutionary trick that made us the dominant species on earth. It's utter shit for finding the truth of things, but it massively serves the purpose of our survival.
   
   Now, if you want religion to just go away so we can have a purely secular society based on reason, then what you want to believe is that religion is just some kind of fluke originally made to explain the world (and it clearly does a poor job of that). I admire that cause, but I doubt it's viability, and I certainly doubt the premise that's justifying it. Or perhaps I'm just making assumptions about your point of view. A purely rational society is one that I think a lot of skeptics dream of, and you are in this subreddit.
   
   Further reading, if you're interested: Emile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious LIfe." Also, Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

> No, they don't.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512
>
> But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

No, the only thing I'll agree to is that both you and Ehrman are totally wrong.

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Cold+case+christianity&qid=1554338796&s=books&sr=1-1

>Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?

You're asking the wrong question. The only effect my faith in God produces is my personal salvation, which is not testable. But is there good evidence that the God of the Bible is the one true God? Yes, there is very good evidence of that. One of the most powerful of these is fulfilled prophecy.

See:
https://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Hope-Hebrew-Studies-Theology-ebook/dp/B004OR18CY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=181JAOD14V0WZ&keywords=is+the+hebrew+bible+messianic&qid=1554338880&s=gateway&sprefix=is+the+hebrew+bible%2Cstripbooks%2C274&sr=8-1

---

Posted by: K**5

>Assertions from church fathers and theologians have NO BEARING bearing on what textual scholars have discovered over the past 19 centuries my friend.

That is a ridiculous statement. The gospel of John for example was completed around 98CE. You believe what contemporaries of John wrote just a few years later in the early 2nd centuries doesn't matter? That is ridiculous. You say you believe in textual examination to determine the author, then why did you dismiss exactly that. Here's what certain textual scholars have said:

>Since Matthew had been a tax collector, it was natural that he would be explicit in his mention of money, figures, and values. (Matt. 17:27; 26:15; 27:3) He keenly appreciated God’s mercy in allowing him, a despised tax collector, to become a minister of the good news and an intimate associate of Jesus. Therefore, we find Matthew alone of the Gospel writers giving us Jesus’ repeated insistence that mercy is required in addition to sacrifice. (9:9-13; 12:7; 18:21-35) Matthew was greatly encouraged by Jehovah’s undeserved kindness and appropriately records some of the most comforting words Jesus uttered: “Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls. For my yoke is kindly and my load is light.” (11:28-30)

I also mentioned how 42% of Matthew's account is not to be found in any other gospel.

>I love the way you emphasized the Matthew specific material while leaving out the fact that 50% of his gospel is copied WORD FOR WORD from Mark

58% of what he wrote is also written about by one or more of the other gospel writers. However, the claim that he copied word for word from Mark has no basis.

>On top of that there are verbal cues in the text that show beyond doubt it was originally composed in Greek..with many of the so-called OT prophecies referenced by Matthew worded (and mistranslated) exactly as they were in the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the OT that the author used for a source.

Matthew was actually written in Aramaic and Koine Greek. So when the book of Matthew refered to OT prophecies it used the Greek septugent OT translation. I do agree with that but I fail to see how you are claiming this proves Matthew did not write the book that bears his name.

>There are a myriad of other reasons why mainstream scholars believe that all of the gospels were composed by anonymous Greek-speaking Christians long after the death of anyone who knew Jesus. If you are sincerely interested in how the NT came together, rather than bolstering conclusions you have arrived at for other reasons, this book is a good starting place: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330919177&sr=8-1

I have in fact read a good part of that book as well as other books of Bart Ehrman. He takes things people have known all along and tries to sensationalize them. His basic argument is that the new testament has hundreds of differences with many early manuscripts. What he doesn't tell you prominently is that almost all the differences are attributed to trivial things like misspellings which don't in fact change the meaning of the words. I invite you to share with me two or three points that absolutely convince you that the Bible was altered. You will quickly realize the book is largely designed to make huge claims through sensationalizing of things we already know.

> I refer you to this site, created by Christians, maintained by Christians, and used by students in every major seminary on earth for research purposes. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

I fail to see why you refered me to this site. A majority of it is talking about writings of early christians after the first century. Are you claiming these writings are also part of the Bible?

> Is there anything at all I can say to get him to even consider my stance?

One approach might be to ask if he could be wrong about his understanding of God. Point out that just within Christianity, there are thousands of sects that all have slightly different approaches to how they interpret the bible. They can't all be right, can they? Are some sects or denominations likely to be more (or less) correct compared to others? For instance, Mormons believe that Jesus was a prophet but is not part of the trinity that most other trinitarian sects believe. Can a Mormon be correct while your friend is correct? Or is it possible that one (or both) are wrong?

He might scoff at Mormons but you can point out that it was decades between when Jesus was supposed to have died and when the gospels were written down. Point out that the gospels are anonymous. A book like Misquoting Jesus is not a bad way to point out that there are a lot of things in the bible that are likely to have been the result of copying errors - accidental or on purpose. That calls into question much of what's in the bible. Even details about what Jesus said and so on are open to question, simply because the "chain of custody" you hear about on cop shows was simply not present in the decades and centuries following Jesus' death and before the bible as a single collection of books was compiled.

Ask him if he was wrong about God, do you think it's important for him to improve his understanding of God? Ask him if being as obstinate as he is is likely to help or hinder his ability to evaluate his beliefs about God.

On your own, you might get a copy of Peter Boghossian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists. While it won't help you to make your friend an atheist, it will help you to talk to your friend and people like him in a non-confrontational way about their faith. Faith for most people is a very personal thing and talking to people about such personal things is, as you've gathered, very difficult. The book will give you some tactics for talking about faith without being threatening. It might help.

Ultimately, though, you and he might decide to avoid the topic entirely. If he's not comfortable discussing his beliefs then it's not fair to him. It's possible he's going through a period of doubt and it may take years for it to fester to the point that he's willing to be more open.

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

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

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

Misquoting Jesus

Lost Christianities

This guy was an evangelical Christian who loved the church and Jesus so much that he went on a life long quest to get the original text the best he could. He learned Hebrew so that he could read the Old Testament in the truest form and then learned Greek so that he could read the New Testament in the truest form. He served as a preacher before going on to get his bachelors, master and then PHD in New Testament studies. Why do I tell you all of this? Because he knows the bible better than 98% of Christians and he LOST HIS FAITH once he learned how altered, butchered, and rewritten the bible was. I'm going to trust this guy over you.


His Wiki

> Your assumptions about not looking for discussion are silly at best and spiteful at worst.

I didn't say you weren't looking for discussion, I said it seems the type of discussion you're looking for is likely better served in a different forum. I hardly think that's thoughtless or disrespectful.

Regarding legislation that is religiously motivated I'll first site gay marriage which attempts to limit people's rights because (in most cases) of religiously motivated "morals."

Second, I'll point out that (typically) religiously motivated opposition to stem-cell research is almost certainly condemning people in this world to addition suffering and death.

A third example is the increase in STDs and unwanted pregnancy caused by the instance, often by religiously motivated people, that only abstinence only sex education be taught.

I'll certainly accept your argument that good intentions do not equate to good outcomes, but certainly they don't necessarily require that they lead to bad outcomes. Does everyone do bad or wrong things at various points throughout their lives? Of course they do. Does that automatically define them as bad people? I would argue of course not. They are factors to be weighed, but to think that we are all born evil and have no hope of being better without having someone continually watching over us is a bleak view of human nature. Hobbes might agree with you, but I think that humans have the capacity for goodness as well, and that we can do good simply for the sake of being good, not because there's someone watching us or because we expect a reward for being good. That was more the point of my argument that atheists (and all people by extension) do good things. We are all capable of being good, at least most of the time. We need not have fear of, or hope for, what comes next to do so.

> You're presumptuous to speak for the billions of people you don't know.

So your claim, then, is that the people who live short unpleasant lives are the luckiest of us all? They have the most capacity to approach god because, like Paul, they suffered the most? Or, am I faulting God for being ignorant and there really are not billions of people suffering every day because they lack the basic necessities of life? I am pretty confident that it's true that they do lack such things, and I don't think it's much of a stretch to point out that that leads to suffering. Beyond that I don't think I did anything to "speak for [them]" as you suppose I did. I pointed out that the majority of people in the world are living short lives of nearly continual suffering. That isn't really putting many words in their mouths.

Interestingly about your point about pain being necessary and then suggesting I read, I just finished a book by Bart Ehrman on the topic of Biblical explanations of why people suffer (your view is only one of several presented in the Bible by the way). He's the dean of theological studies at UNC at Chapel Hill if you're unfamiliar with who he is. It's a very interesting read, and I would like to recommend you pick up your own copy of God's Problem. I think that many people who know me would be surprised to hear that I lack basic reasoning skills. I, obviously, disagree with your assessment there. As for your slight against the American education system, I'll point out that my University education anyway was in Canada.

I wouldn't say that I know nothing of Jesus' anger, although one of the most famous examples (throwing the money changers out of the temple) is probably not actually original to the Bible. We could get into a lot of textual criticism but I'll confess I only have knowledge of that from a single source (another Bart Ehrman book called Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

If you think the Bible as you read it is the original way it was written you would do well to read that, just for the introduction into the search for the original text of the NT in particular.

The Dust of Death: The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever by Os Guinness. In it, Guinness dissects the American West Coast counter-culture of the 1960s, albeit from a Christian perspective. It's been many years since I last read it, but it is an interesting book. I'm not sure how relevant it is to Peterson's agenda, but it probably has some echoes in today's cultural shifts, even after 50 years.

> I read an older edition of this, and as I recall, it was the greatest "culture" study of the 60's that I have ever read, and it was the greatest work of cultural history that I have ever read, also. Guinness' time with Francis Schaeffer was well-spent and he developed a knack for being able to "read" a movement and understand not just what they believed (philosophy, world-view, politics, etc.) but also where they got their ideas from (influences etc.) and where that group was going. Very few historians and students of culture are capable of doing this these days. He is also brilliant at being able to keep his own views from clouding his views of each group. Not too shabby a skill to have. It's a shame that almost nobody cares about the truth these days, since everybody is just interested in getting their own ideology into power... that or just avoiding the tough questions altogether.

> A book which I have read and reread so many times it is now falling apart. It sets the scene for what has been the dramatic collapse of western culture following the advent of postmodernism. It is a must read for anyone trying to understand how we got where we are.

Customer reviews on Goodreads.

It seems likely that the original authors were recording the existing mythos of their people, and the myths were used in their society like myths are used in every society: to explain and give meaning to a world they didn't understand, to provide a cohesive narrative for the group, to pass along and reinforce values. I have found learning just a little about the common mythologies of the world extremely interesting and helpful in putting the bible into correct perspective. Like, how many times a flood myth pops up and the different interactions between the diving and humanity in those stories.

You might enjoy Bart Ehrman's writing on the new testament and Jesus as he explores the story of Jesus, who wrote, changed and codified it and why, and how it became a religion.

Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

No answers yet?

Many of the atheists here agree on Bart Ehrman as a good source. He's a Bible scholar who used to be Christian but whose studies have left him an atheist. He's written a whole series of books about how the Bible was cobbled together and, self-plagiarized, forged and fiddled, and so on. There's a field or method of study called critical analysis that makes the Bible's authenticity problems apparent, and Ehrman writes that stuff into popular books.

Two of his hits have been Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted and Forged. The latter is perhaps his most explicit indictment of the intellectual crimes behind the Bible. Lost Christianities and other books talk about the many gospels and other writings that never made it into or were excised from what's known as the Bible today.

Ehrman also has a bunch of talks on YouTube where he engagingly presents those same ideas.

There are alternatives, of course, and it could be argued whether Ehrman is "the best." But he certainly knows what he's talking about (mostly), is a recognized authority on this kind of stuff, and presents it well. Best of all (from our point of view) he doesn't Lie For Jesus.

Sort of. Outside of the extant christian denominations in the US which went through different phases of popularity (the variant streams of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and also the Catholic and Orthodox [large O]communities) the 19th Century was a time when several factors saw the birthing of many unorthodox offshoots from Protestant streams- examples include the Millerites in the 1830s, itself spawning the seventh day adventists a few years later; but also the Jehovah's witnesses. Of these, Mormonism is the first, but many radical revisions of Christianity - including Protestantism itself - happened over several centuries previously. The Quakers, Mennonites, Unitarians and Anabaptists, as well as the more 'mainstream' or 'orthodox' [small o] denominations I listed first, are all examples of where political, ideological, theological, or other motives lead people to revise their belief system, or understand it differently, or coalesce with others on a similar journey.

Generally, Christians tend to distiguish between denominations and cults by asking whether a 'denomination' has claimed an absolute monopoly on truth. That is, the reason Evangelical Baptists and Methodists both consider each other Christians is that their differences, though proper disagreements in themselves, are seen as superfluous enough in the light of general Christianity for them to be seen as largely in agreement. What many of the groups I listed (though not all completely, nor none to no degree) went through was this process of establishing themselves as fundamentally Christian in particular ways, whilst going about their ideological differences in ways which promoted them as superfluous.

The social context you're referring to did exist, but it is such a large nebulous contextual amalgamation of all things Modern, that it's difficult to describe except in big books like this. at the end of the day, Mormonism was created by one person, and then a bunch of people who felt that the changes they made to Christianity were necessary, and all of their motivations and accomplishments are reasonably well documented. the social context in america, particularly for mormons, included the Westward expansion, the possibility of new power, and nationhood, which gave them more of a possibility of surviving the process I described above, where the other streams of Christianity criticised it as a cult because of its large departures from orthodoxy [small o], and closed communities.

To sum up, the social context which encouraged experimentation and heterodoxy with doctrine and practice has been present since Christianity's inception.

The book you're looking for is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"

I'm about 70% though it and it's been a great read. It's thick reading, but super interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

Free (legal?) ebook links here: https://archive.org/details/Prof.BartEhrman-MisquotingJesus

I'm preaching verse by verse through the whole book for the next year. I just finished 3:7-12 this morning. Two commentaries and one book have been especially helpful.

First, Pillar is a reasonably technical one. It's still pretty accessible but does interact with languages and other scholars.

Second, NIVAC is a good application focused option. It does not get as scholarly as I like, but it does the job it tries to do, very well.

Finally, Keller's King's Cross is not really a commentary, but does an exceptional job of fitting the account of Jesus in with a whole Bible understanding.

Those three have been my go to resources so far.

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil



[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/0684859203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323376708&sr=8-1 Noah's Flood had some very interesting information brought about in part by the mapping of the sea floor in the black sea for the US Navy.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323376738&sr=1-1 This book was fantastic. If you ever wanted to know how the bibles (because there are many versions) came to be the way they are, this is where you start. The author truly gets into great detail about the documents on which we based our current bibles.

If you're interested in reading more about how the Bible changed over time, read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

It's a little on the dry side, but it's not a rant, and if you're unfamiliar with textual criticism, you may find it interesting on that point alone.

For example, while some stories sound very "Christ-like", the story of the good Samaritan doesn't appear in any of the earliest versions of the New Testament--it was added by monks hundreds of years afterwards.

Fascinating material if you have an open mind.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years gets recommended quite a lot. I'm only part of the way through, but it's a great book. Unfortunately, I don't see a large print edition, but you can get the ebook if that's an option.

If you like podcasts, I'd recommend starting with Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean and moving to History of the Papacy. There are also classes/podcasts on the history of the Orthodox and Coptic Churches, as well as the Reformation.

You could consult these books. I cannot vouch for all of them because I'm getting these recommendations from the bibliographies of other books, but I believe they will be helpful for you because I am consulting the bibliographies of scholarly sources. You might consider finding them at a library if they are too expensive.

• "7. Christianity and the Daimyo" by Jurgis Elisonas, in the Cambridge History of Japan, Volume 4: Early Modern Japan, pp.301-72. This long chapter should surely give a good overview.
  
  
• The Christian Century in Japan, 1549-1650 by CR Boxer - this is an older work dating to the 60s, but is considered to be very good.
  
  
• A History of Christianity in Japan by Richard Drummond
  
  
• Deus Destroyed: The Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan by George Elison - an impactful monograph on the beginnings of Christianity in Japan.
  
  
• "23. Christianity in East Asia" by R.G. Tiedemann, in the Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 7. Covers the period beginning from the Tokugawa shogunate into the 19th century, pp.467-470.
  
  
• "30. Christianity in East Asia: China, Korea and Japan" by Daniel H. Bays and James H. Grayson, in the Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 8 - this covers the 19th century. The section on Japan is rather short, comprising pp.509-12.
  
  
• Christianity Made in Japan: A Study of Indigenous Movements by Mark R. Mullins - this work looks unique because it tries to summarize Japanese Christian history through its reception by the Japanese rather than via an overview of Western missionary efforts.

The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:

• God: A Human History
  
• Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith
  
• The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs: A New History of a Lost World
  
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck
  
• Occult America
  
• When Prophecy Fails
  
• Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
  
• Cosmos
  
• Norse Mythology
  
• Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water
  
• Guns, Germs, and Steel
  
• Misquoting Jesus
  
• On Bullshit
  
• The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
  
• Why People Believe Weird Things
  
  Plus a bunch of books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and others. There are way too many. And all the fiction books I want to read too! It's not that I didn't read books before, but my faith transition has sparked an intense desire to study and learn far greater than I ever experienced before.

Yes, if changes from the original transcript were propagated in the period where things were in flux, and the "settled" version included those changes, it absolutely changes future translations.

This book is a worthwhile read on how we can see and find many of these changes and even reverse some of them by comparing different manuscripts and through knowledge of the original languages and their sources: https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I recommend it, if you're curious about the topic.

I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is a legitimate academic focused on the New Testament. Misquoting Jesus (and his other books) are great if you find yourself asking questions like this.

It can be very confusing. If you are really curious read a book on it, like this one, this one, or this one. It's honestly a fascinating subject. The things they have done and do are pretty crazy.

this book is what finally pushed me over the edge into atheism / freedom. it's about how the bible as we know is completely inaccurate. this naturally led me to ask myself, if what we base our worship and knowledge of god is inherently inaccurate, then that's as good as believing a fiction. quite simply, believing a lie.

For anyone interested, the book Going Clear is a pretty good insight to Hubbard's life.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307700666/

Holy shit, dude. That sounds like the exact opposite of fun. If they've got something important to say, then summarize it here.

Just for fun, why don't you read Misquoting Jesus or The History of God, if you're not afraid to expose yourself to some scholarship that will challenge your most cherished illusions.

Jesus the King!

Beautiful description of why The Trinity is vital to the Christian faith as well as history, the cosmos, and more

Assertions from church fathers and theologians have NO BEARING bearing on what textual scholars have discovered over the past 19 centuries my friend. I refer you to this site, created by Christians, maintained by Christians, and used by students in every major seminary on earth for research purposes. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

I love the way you emphasized the Matthew specific material while leaving out the fact that 50% of his gospel is copied WORD FOR WORD from Mark, who was most certainly not an eye witness. This is not what you would expect from someone who actually witnessed the events. On top of that there are verbal cues in the text that show beyond doubt it was originally composed in Greek..with many of the so-called OT prophecies referenced by Matthew worded (and mistranslated) exactly as they were in the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the OT that the author used for a source. There are a myriad of other reasons why mainstream scholars believe that all of the gospels were composed by anonymous Greek-speaking Christians long after the death of anyone who knew Jesus. If you are sincerely interested in how the NT came together, rather than bolstering conclusions you have arrived at for other reasons, this book is a good starting place: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330919177&sr=8-1

Diarmaid Macculloch's History of Christianity: the first three thousand years is pretty thorough.

Universal reconciliation has had a pretty interesting history in Christianity as well.

Yes, by Bart Ehrman: https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

Great read, very interesting!

> The same techniques that lead us to suspect the ending of Mark might not be genuine show us that the vast majority of the New Testament exists largely unchanged from the original manuscripts, save for the odd spelling error.

No, they don't.

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

But we might just have to agree to disagree about that. In any case...

> I believe only in the God of the Bible.

With or without Mark 16:17-18?

Either way, let me just ask you: does faith in the God of the Bible produce any measurable (by a non-believer) effect that faith in some other god does not? If so, what is it? If not, then in what sense can such a god be said to exist?

That "double think" may never completely go away for me. I've made peace with it, though, by trying to understand the psychology behind it.

All of the books recommended so far are a great place to start. A book that made a big impact on me was Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus. I was always taught that the bible was infallible, so reading about how it was actually written helped peel away some of that double think for me.

You might be interested in "Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why", which was written my one of the leading NT textual critics. I don't know that you are going to find a vast conspiracy where anyone has altered the text radically, but there certainly are variations in our early manuscripts.

If you are interested in the Old Testament, I recommend "Who Wrote the Bible?".

I’m a gay atheist. At first when I finally accepted I was gay, I tried my best to reconcile my being gay with Christianity until I read the Bible cover to cover (OT and NT, New International Version) until I found out the glaring errors, contradictions and repugnant deeds and sayings by God himself, his prophets as well as Jesus Christ and that made me look into more until I found four books that made me realize that the Abrahamic god is a man made one and not someone who is all-powerful and all knowing.

The books are here:
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ
Misquoting Jesus
Is It God’s Word?
The God Delusion

If she's interested in books, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman really dismantled my belief in the veracity of the New Testament. I haven't read his other books but I've heard they're good. Also, Mormon Stories has a really interesting series on the New Testament featuring religious academic Jared Anderson.

She might want to check out the New Order Mormon board for a safe place to ask questions. It might feel less threatening than this sub.

Most of it came from classes and lectures. I don't have the class book list and sources anymore. I do hope you really, really like reading!

Forged writingss

Misquoting Jesus A well known book.

Introduction to the new testiment

The new testament: a historical intoduction

Revelation and the End of All Things Also a somewhat popular book

You can also do some Wikipedia reading on Gnosticism and other early Christen sects to get an idea of just how many groups their were and how differing their beliefs could be. Also look for things on the Q, M and L source.

Edit

You can likely find a number of online pod-casts (or whatever you call them) and lectures on these things.

I am not a historian so my access to books and memorized sources is very limited, I am a student and have been accused of reading serial boxes at least once when I accidentally quoted the wrong book name, It was too much fun to make the correction as no one had ever said that too me before and I felt special, like I had hit an academic milestone.

Also, Don't feel bad about asking for sources.

Bart Ehrman has a number of good books on this subject. I just finished Misquoting Jesus and am in the middle of Forged. Ehrman has a nice writing style that is easy to read.

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings - Bart D. Ehrman

I didn't see anything by him in the FAQ but I think he's a great author on the topic of Christianity and The Bible; he started out as a biblical scholar before becoming an atheist.

Edit: That book is actually a bit heavy to start with, it reads like a text book. I'd recommend starting with Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why or Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible

I wonder how the theist in question would respond to finding out that that particular referenced passage was added to the bible much later. Any mildly intellectually honest bible includes a footnote on this entire story stating that "our earliest and most reliable sources do not contain this passage", meaning "this passage was added later, by other people." If anyone is interested in reading more about it, they can look here for a quick resource, and here for a much better one.

Edit: Sorry, my intent with this comment was a little unclear. I am certainly glad to see theists who use more of their brain and accept people for how they are, rather than the two typical responses: 1) spewing hateful dogma or 2) distancing themselves (superficially) from the 'twisted ideology' that would cause such an attack. I would much prefer to see many mild Christians than no change at all, obviously. This response, however, presents me with two problems. First, the passage doesn't say the gay person did nothing wrong, simply that we are in no position to judge someone who does something wrong. That is not actually a particularly progressive view. "Yes, homosexuality is a problem, but who am I to judge you?" the ideology says. Second, this passage is so often used to justify accepting homosexuals, yet was not actually in the bible, originally. It would be more accurate to attribute it to Anon., which would make it meaningless to most Christians.

Anyway, I hope that makes my intent more clear.

> They belong to a cult that is brainwashing them from birth.

I hate to be that guy, but that IS Christianity as a whole. I'm Agnostic with a Bachelors in History here. You would be amazed about how much a regular Christian is clueless about how the bible was built, by whom, and why it's been changed over the centuries. Here's a good book from amazon if you are interested in learning more..

If you want to get intellectual, it is worth looking into how exactly the New Testament came together..rather than just learning the theology within it. This book is a good place to start.

Good books. Did you have any particular subjects within atheism that you would like to read about?

If I can make 2 recommendations for what to read next;

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan

The FAQ has a nice little section on books.

NukethePope also has a nice list.

Here's my recommendations:

Start with This video. It's based off the book "A History of god" by Karen Armstrong. This is what the bulk of biblical scholars agree with. Note that the author was a former nun & is still a Christian.

& I recommend the following books:

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All

You've already received a few suggestions regarding philosophers. So, with regards to your interest in a point of view that "religion is a institution worth conserving and not because religion is true or false", you may want to have a look at the sociologist Durkheim's, The elementary forms of the religious life.

https://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Forms-Religious-Life/dp/0199540128

As far as Christianity goes, probably the best book I've read about the "unathenticity" of the Bible is "Misquoting Jesus."

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I wrote the following book about Christianity that's less professional but still raises some interesting points. It's free. So don't accuse me of spamming:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124010563/The-Reality-of-Christianity

Yes. See below to name a few great books for further study:
Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Library of Early Christology)


[Scripture Re-envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (Bible in Ancient Christianity)]
(https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Re-envisioned-Christophanic-Christian-Christianity/dp/9004386106)

The Theology of Jewish Christianity: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The Council of Nicaea

In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity

Lawrence Wright, in his new book "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" provides detail on the IRS infiltration and how it was so effective that the IRS immediately afterwards gave Scientology its tax-exempt status by recognizing it as a church.

The Wright book is a really good bit of journalism and a great read.

>I read the NT last year on my own

This really stood out to me. Good job doing your own research and coming to your own concluisions, I know it can be hard.

That said, I assume that you read the KJV NT, since you are BIC. I highly recommend books like Jesus, Interrupted, which are introductory books into the actual history of the New Testament.

As a teaser, did you know that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) weren't written until at least 40 years after Christ died? Mark is the oldest book, but Mark was used as a source by Matthew and Luke. Further, the Gospels are excellent examples of pseudepigrapha, or books inappropriately attributed to an author. I.e., the Gopels weren't written by the apostles named.

Actually this is the most accurate overview of the CoS to date: http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666

And being a member of the CoS means nothing in regards to knowing about L. Ron Hubbard's actual history, the most powerful members of Scientology are totally deluded about his history. Aleister Crowley did not mentor LRH, Hubbard just ripped off a lot of his ideas, Crowley thought he was an idiot. The part about Jack Parsons is true, though.

Misquoting Jesus. It's by a highly regarded New Testament scholar and covers the history of the creation and development of the New Testament brilliantly.

A bunch of good books have already been mentioned, so I'll throw this one in the mix. Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus does a very good job explaining how the documents that make up the Bible were compiled, altered, and repercussions of that process.

You're right, I was snarky.

An eye opening book for me was Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman on biblical textualism. I think by the end of his studies Erhman was no longer christian and perhaps an atheist.

Strangely enough, COLDS realized sometime in the early 1900's they had nobody educated in the church on biblical issues with advanced degrees. They sponsored a number of students from BYU to attend University of Chicago to pursue divinity degrees. I believe www.bycommonconsent.com wrote on it. They did have problems with the program because many students would end up leaving the church.

You mentioned being a history major. I can understand studying religion as a historical phenomenon and the influence it has on society. Critical thinking would be involved. However, I had too many Institute teachers that would happily tell you about the validity of pillars of fire/smoke/vapor that lead the Israelites through the wilderness. Critical thinking takes a vacation on that one. We have a fellow in my ward that is highly respected for his understanding of the scriptures and is consistently called to be the GD teacher or an institute teacher. He will tell you unequivocally that when the 2nd coming happens that the moon will literally be turned into a giant drop of blood. I tried to talk him off that particular ledge with no success. I now listen to what he says on any subject with a huge grain of salt if his thinking skills are that highly impaired.

Edit to add words.

My personal fave is written by Bart Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

And the book that is my fave is Misquoting Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I highly recommend two key books by renowned New Testament scholar and professor Bart Ehrman. Professor Ehrman is among the most respected authorities on New Testament Studies and Scholarship in the United States.

(1) Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (2010);

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=mp_s_a_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1548990181&sr=8-11&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=bart+ehrman+books

and

(2) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2007).

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548990181&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=bart+ehrman+books&dpPl=1&dpID=51Th%2BI5OOGL&ref=plSrch

Sounds like you might enjoy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060859512/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/178-5171865-8697962

Fun fact:: 1Tim was most probably a forgery and not written by St. Paul. There are other passages regarding women that even contradict St. Paul where he does allow women to speak publicly, and he regarded women as very promiment in the Church in other passages. In fact, this isn't the first occasion that the text of the New Testament was altered by scribes with a specific agenda. If you guys haven't read
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, I really recommend you to do so.

>>What tangible evidence would that be exactly?

Me repeatedly telling you I don't care to talk about it anymore.

Alright Mr. Fair Shake At All Sides I will give you 4 books you should read. You say you are well versed, prove it. If you have read counter points to your beliefs, go ahead and list them for me. Otherwise you should read these 4 books:

Atheist Material:

Dawkins - The God Delusion

Harris - End of Faith

Actual Scholar Material:

Friedman - Who Wrote The Bible?

Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

Actually Ehrman has many books, but I don't want to overload you.

Until you actually READ the counter material, you won't get anywhere.

Islam Unvelied is a great book by Robert Spencer, a Catholic who really knows his stuff about Islam.

There's also a debate between Robert Spencer and Peter Kreeft on Youtube titled, "Is the only good Muslim a bad Muslim?" that I'd highly recommend. You might be shocked at the conclusion of the debate.

Going Clear by Lawrence Wright. Engaging read, couldnt put it down. Not depressing, just slightly bewildering

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666

Been reading Misquoting Jesus lately. It's a basic and well written introduction to biblical scholarship. The author does point out that the KJV did not use the best possible sources available so there is that. The author gets into some depth involving the earliest source material for the bible being letters written in Greek being copied and recopied to be circulated among the faithful throughout the known world. Because of this, there are many small errors over the centuries and not a few large ones as well. I won't get into too much detail, but he does make the statement that there are more discrepancies between the source material, than there are words in the new testament. It's definitely an eye opener.

I'm no scholar, of course, but it seems like the majority of scholars believe that a man named Jesus existed in the first century C.E. and that he caused some trouble. Some of the New Testament (parts of Mark specifically) may be credible, but much of what we know about Jesus is myth. Pretty much everything written about him was written long after he died. The writings of Paul are some of the earliest Christian writings, and those don't go into much detail about Jesus.

I would recommend reading the book "Misquoting Jesus" if you are interested.

These are written on a more popular level

• Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliot Friedman, a nice introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis of Torah authorship.
  
• The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman. An archaeologist examines the historicity of the Bible, from Adam through Solomon, based on the archaeological evidence.
  
• Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman. Hard to go wrong with any of Ehrman's books. This is as good a place to start as any.

By the way, anyone interested in learning more about the Bible as a historical book of legend, I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus - written by a very spiritual man who considers the Bible a book written by man, not God.

• Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett
  
• Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
  
• The End of Faith by Sam Harris
  
• The Elegant Universe by Briane Greene (about string theory)
  
• Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees
  
• Before The Beginning by Martin Rees
  
• Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R. Hofstadter
  
• The Demon-Haunted World by Sagan
  

There is a positive correlation between becoming a biblical scholar and becoming agnostic.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

The Evolution of Confusion by Dan Dennett

I'm curious how can possibly relate the study of programming to the study of the Bible?

In my mind (obviously as an atheist) there are only two ways of approaching the Bible:
As an interpreted text.
As a literal text.

If you are taking the "interpreted" route, then you can hardly compare the Bible to learning programming. You don't interpret the meaning of a using pointers to reference memory, you do it in one of several well understood ways. If you are implying that logic can b applied to the interpreted Bible then you have to take the historicity of the Bible into account, especially the New Testament. I recommend you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman before using your programming skills to interpret the Bible any further.

On the other hand, if you are attempting to imply that you can use the logical training afforded by studying programming to study the LITERAL Bible, then you're either insane or are not studying your programming hard enough. Too many inconsistencies in the Bible to even bother going though, here's a starter list.

Depending on which level you prefer, I would suggest two books.

Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley provides a very basic, simple, broad stroke approach to church history. The elitists here won't care much for it, but this is a good place to start for someone who is not at all familiar with the history of the church.

If you want a little more detail, History of Christianity is one of my favorites.

The Faith by Brian Moynihan: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-A-History-Christianity-Brian-Moynihan/dp/B002838V58

Warning: also serves as a very effective door-stopper.

Mistranslated and completely rewritten in many instances. Misquoting Jesus is an excellent book on the topic.

Yep, I recommend misquoting jesus. It talks in depth about the translation issues in the Bible.

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

I had been reading this book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and it was very integral in my final transition into full blown atheism. It was written by an evangelical too. I really try not to debate ppl, whatever they want to believe is fine with me, but when it infringes on my personal space I'll open my mouth. I read it for my own interests, not to shoot ppl down. I'm not a typical reddit atheist.

Np. If you like this kind of stuff, you should look into the books by Bart Ehrman. He's a New Testament scholar that writes about this stuff in a very easy to understand way. Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted are the two books he became known for, and they have ruffled a lot of feathers, but his other books are very readable too.

There's all sorts of evidence of significant corruptions in what we currently think of as the Bible. Off the top of my head, here are some seriously major things, fundamental core beliefs of modern Christianity, that are known to have been simply inserted into the Bible many years (centuries, in some cases) afterwards:

(1) The main passage which is used to support the concept of the Trinity - i.e. that the three are one but three yadda yadda - says absolutely nothing about the Trinity in any of the known early copies of the Bible; someone at some point much later just inserted some unrelated words, and voila, Trinity. More info: The Comma Johanneum

(2) The famous story of the woman taken in adultery ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone") is not present in any known early Bible. More info: The Pericope Adulterae

(3) The ending of the Gospel of Mark (where Jesus, risen from the dead, appears before the disciples) is not present in any known early Bible. In the original (actual) Gospel of Mark, no one witnesses a risen Jesus (one man who is not identified claims to have witnessed him, but presents no evidence, and risen Jesus certainly doesn't show up). More info: Mark 16

And there are all sorts of other things, ranging from more outright insertions like the above all the way down to transcription errors which propagated; even some of the transcription errors have significant theological implications.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I heartily recommend the book Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman.

Actually, I think Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus By Bart D. Ehrman would give better insight to christianity/bible.

> I believe the New Testament is literal

I think you might enjoy Misquoting Jesus.

Bart D Ehrman Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted would be a valuable place to start.
There are also some videos on youtube of related lectures or debates.

Edit, I would add Dale Allison's book, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus.

Why Evolution is True

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark


Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free online!)

Guns, Germs, Steel

The God Delusion

Misquoting Jesus (Conceptional this is very compatible with Mormonism--the Bible not being translated correctly so we need the BoM!--but the specifics about what got mistranslated are devastating as Mormonism doubled down on the mistranslated parts. oops.)

Don't even both learning anything more about Mormonism. Just be widely read and you'll soon see that the Mormon version of history is in incongruent with reality. This will cause cognitive dissonance and when you're ready to resolve it, go back and read independent sources about Mormonism and it will be very obvious that the narrative they indoctrinated into you as a child doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/?pldnSite=1

My absolute favorite read. It’s in our recommendation list.

An easy and informative read of many such errors and additions is Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. I recommend you check it out if you haven't yet.

Misquoting Jesus might be of interest to you, albeit maybe not from the perspective you wanted.

Misquoting Jesus is a good one

Its a good book too

Don't suggest a book you haven't read. If you pick your books you should read them first then give them to your mom. I recommend two books in this order. First, Second.

We have 4 things written 30+ years after an event, based on oral stories, that all say the event happened differently. It isn't a fact, because we don't for sure know it happened. We don't have video evidence, we don't have living witnesses. I can write something saying 30 years ago my friend was Batman, doesn't mean it's a fact.

I suggest you look at these two books.

History of Religious Ideas, Vol 1, Vol 2 and Vol 3. by Mircea Eliade A comprehensive comparison and history of different religions, religious ideas and ways in which myths work. Was a real eye-opener

_

LE - Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray

Bart Ehrman would like to say a few words about that

I would recommend that everyone read Misquoting Jesus. Very informative.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252905423&sr=8-1

I recommend this

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060859512/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_cGpXAb62KVFJC

I recommend this book to learn more.

Lawrence Wright's "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" is the most-recent must read book on this pernicious organization.

It's a good complement to Janet Reitman's "Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion" which was published just a couple of years ago.

Fallible humans writing over many years of what they believed to be true regarding Nature and the Universe that got copied and recopied sometimes with scribes making honest mistakes while others actively changing the Bible to suit their needs making it say what they thought it should say and cutting out parts they didn't want in it.

Book Suggestions:

[Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)](http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320261985&sr=1-3]()


Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)

You are doing it wrong. Never agree to read a book without getting them to read one in return. And they will not read a Dawkins book. Instead go for a Rachel Held Evans book (Faith Unraveled), where the author is still a Christian. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0310339162/

Also, Peter Enns (The Bible Told Me So) is a Christian theologian and is another one to challenge their view of the Bible. Again both are Christians still, but it will challenge their fundamentalism. That's the first step just to get them to learn to safely ask questions of their own faith. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062272039/

Review by Rachel Held Evans of Peter Enns' book:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/peter-enns-bible-tells-me-so

Pick one of those books, and promise to discuss it with them afterwards, in exchange for reading a book they pick.

The key is that you want them to realize that you know more about the Bible than they do. When you are ready for it, I recommend Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus). https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060859512/

And finally, watch more Street Epistomology videos on youtube. You need to focus more on the "Why" of what they believe. You are spending too much time arguing, and not enough time trying to learn about "why" they believe. For most, it's fear of death.

You might want to pick up a copy of the revised translation of the Nag Hammadi Library and check out http://earlychristianwritings.com where you can find a lot of the stuff you are looking for. You might also like the book Misquoting Jesus

We know that some things have changed, been added, etc. though its debatable whether the additions add to the tradition or if going to the most original sources possible is "better", on top of that there are often disagreements about which source is "more original" out of a set of sources. There are already tons of contradictions in the Christian Bible and if you start adding in stuff that was removed you get even more and many of those quickly get much harder to reconcile than the existing ones.

I'm in Texas now, but I grew up in the Toronto area. The church isn't quite so tied to the public school system, although it wasn't always so. I remember part of the daily opening exercises would include standing and singing along for O Canada, followed by recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Due to the growing cultural mosaic, they finally did away with the latter.

Then there was the Separate School system, where the Catholic Church was tightly interwoven with the school. Church doctrine was taught as part of the standard curriculum. Teachers needed to be Catholic in order to have/keep their teaching job. I also seem to recall hearing about one teacher whose husband wasn't Catholic and she was at risk of losing her job if he didn't convert.

I don't know if it's still the case, but the Separate School system somehow got additional government funding and/or tax breaks. Details escape me now. I just remember hearing time and again how they would have smaller classes, better school resources, and never on strike whereas the public school teachers would end up on strike every so many years.

To your previous point, I also find I have to watch what I say when folks here inject conversations with "I'll pray for you/him/her" or quote sections of the Bible. Certainly when I see it posted on Facebook I'm tempted to go try and dig up a Buddhist quote or possibly something from The Art Of War or some other non-religious but recognized quote (or simply post this link). Then the moment passes and I decide not to be a dick about it, and just move on.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman -this is the place to start with New Testament history

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman

You should give the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman a read. He walks the reader through the process of textual analysis to determine how the bible has changed from its original form, and ultimately casts doubt on the idea that it is the literal word of god. For example, there's evidence to suggest that the story of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman ("Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone") was a later addition.

> EDIT Thanks for the thoughts so far. I see that disproving God was probably the wrong way to put it. Could anyone point me to some material that clearly, logically shows fallacies in the bible? That would be appreciated.

If you want to see what shaky material the Bible is, do some reading on textual criticism. I can recommend Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus - he's a biblical scholar who was once a fundamentalist and eventually abandoned his belief when he realised they could not be supported by evidence.

You might also want to take a look at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which annotates the text with comments that point out all the fallacies and contradictions.

I agree. This macro is unfair and is Exhibit A on why I don't like image macros to begin with.

Some libertarians exhibit certain characteristics of cult behavior (cutting yourself off from family is the most extreme I've seen), but nothing like the psychopaths at Scientology. Most local chapters of any political organization/party require some kind of dues to provide basic communication and organization. Paying $25 per year is pretty damn low. Comparing it to joining SeaOrg is ridiculous.

Read Lawrence Wright's current book and tell me the Libertarian Party is the same.

His book is amazing and terrifying.

The History of God

Misquoting Jesus

You could also go to Yale Online Courses and watch the courses on New Testament and Old Testament history.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060859512/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GsRiDbSWBQ8GX

Who wrote the bible?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/B006QS02F8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330702871&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c

Why should I believe a random Quora answer instead of a Yale Professor, or an actual textual critic?

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q%26tag%3Dduckduckgo-d-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0060859512

The only "original" biblical account of Jesus appears to be from Mark. All the other accounts of Jesus in the bible seem to have been written at an even later remove in time and used Mark as the primary source--variations on a theme if you will. Take a look at Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

Have you read any Bart D. Ehrman?

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376049641&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0199739781

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

Misquoting Jesus is a reasonable resource about the historical history of the bible, as in the bible the book not 'the bible' the scripture.

Inconsistencies begs the question of how they got in there, so I'd reference [Misquoting Jesus](http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255545310&sr=8-1 "eye opening") by Bart Ehrman. You can tie his work in with the modern equivalent [Conservative Bible Project](http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project "Cognitive Dissonance").

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256032819&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council

http://www.gentles.info/BibleHistory/Index_History.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060859512?pc_redir=1397900990&robot_redir=1

• 1. Modern Man in Search of A Soul – Carl Jung
     
• 2. Maps Of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief – Jordan B. Peterson
     
• 3. A History of Religious Ideas (Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3) – Mircea Eliade

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666

It's not stupid at all. When you're dealing with a text that is (parts of it, anyway) roughly 3,500 years old (assuming the pentateuch was completed in roughly 1,500 BCE) AND wasn't available for wide release until the creation of the printing press in the mid-15th century during which time illiteracy was the norm and- until that point- was copied by scribes, then of course you have to wonder about the veracity of today's bible.

I read a really interesting book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman that helped me understand this very problem. Note: he is a biblical scholar and practicing Christian, lest you think this is an attack on the bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually show that early Christians were very un-methodical in translation accuracy. I can pull sources when I get home, but the dead sea scrolls were in fact being produced by scribes in the process of copying and intentionally altering the text. Also they are just one of many hundreds of documents we've discovered. Even if they were somehow 100% like our modern Torah, the other hundreds which contain deliberate and huge negligent modifications show that in most cases they were not concerned with preserving the text's accuracy.

Early Christians commonly altered text on purpose, to support their own agendas. I really recommend you read some literary criticism of the Bible, like that of Ehrman. Certainly the vast majority of changes were of no theological significance--spelling errors, missed lines, etc--even though sometimes those innocent changes caused later scribes to misunderstand the text and then modify it even more in effort to "fix" it.

As just one example off the top of my google, John 8:3-11 is entirely a fabrication added by older scribes.

Coming from the background of indoctrination, you're right. I am biased. Biased for the one true reality and now anti-fiction.

As far as facts for what I've said, you should start here.

> that is, the fact that the Bible has remained unchanged throughout the years

"Fact" - not at all. This isn't true. See Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

There have been errors introduced into the Bible by scribes copying it incorrectly.

Furthermore the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't much better:

>The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. In many cases the scrolls show a remarkable similarity to the text of the Hebrew Bible currently in use. In some cases differences between the scrolls and the traditional Hebrew text help explain difficulties in the present Hebrew Bible, and most modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV) incorporate some of the new information from the scrolls.

The Nag Hammadi find also casts some doubts on the idea of a unified Christian message and theology in the early years after Jesus was crucified. There is a lot scholoraly historical work on the differences betweeen various forms of Christianity from the 1st and 2nd century.

So there were a lot more Gospels, they just didn't make it into the Bible. The Christian Bible you see today was basically established by the early Roman Church. This particular form of Christianity was state sanctioned and thus other forms were driven out, if not outright persecuted.

If you're interested in following the origins of Scientology or all of the disturbing rumors that surround it - this book has been an eye opener: [Going Clear] (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666)

Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright

Most of my knowledge comes from Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities and a bit of resultant self study. Unfortunately my copies are out on loan right now so I can't pull out and direct examples. In lieu of that I did find some examples of changes/omissions between different branches of copies.

There's an entire field of study which seeks to discern the original from all of the different copies. It's my understanding that the result of this work has been the elimination of most of the copy errors which occurred after ~300AD or so, but as /u/TheIceCreamPirate states, we don't have any complete copies, and very few fragments, of the gospels prior to then, so any errors which would have been introduced prior to that time are hidden from us.

EVERYONE SHOULD READ GOING CLEAR: SCIENTOLOGY, HOLLYWOOD, & THE PRISON OF BELIEF

By Lawrence Wright

Just came out this year!

I don't find that funny, I find it hugely disturbing. Learn about how your Bible was created and then see what that does for you.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397171166&sr=8-1&keywords=a+history+of+god

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397171269&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus+the+story+behind+who+changed+the+bible+and+why

Also please don't just downvote this guy because he's a religious person, that is counter-intuitive to the discourse here.

> There are other reasons for suspecting that Jesus’s prayer of forgiveness is original to Luke 23. Throughout both Luke and Acts, for example, it is emphasized that even though Jesus was innocent (as were his followers), those who acted against him did so in ignorance. As Peter says in Acts 3: “I know that you acted in ignorance” (v. 17); or as Paul says in Acts 17: “God has overlooked the times of ignorance” (v. 27). And that is precisely the note struck in Jesus’s prayer: “for they don’t know what they are doing.”

> It appears, then, that Luke 23:34 was part of Luke’s original text. Why, though, would a scribe (or a number of scribes) have wanted to delete it? Here is where understanding something about the historical context within which scribes were working becomes crucial. Readers today may wonder for whom Jesus is praying. Is it for the Romans who are executing him in ignorance? Or is it for the Jews who are responsible for turning him over to the Romans in the first place? However we might answer that question in trying to interpret the passage today, it is clear how it was interpreted in the early church. In almost every instance in which the prayer is discussed in the writings of the church fathers, it is clear that they interpreted the prayer as being uttered not on behalf of the Romans but on behalf of the Jews. Jesus was asking God to forgive the Jewish people (or the Jewish leaders) who were responsible for his death.

> Now it becomes clear why some scribes would have wanted to omit the verse. Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews? How could that be? For early Christians there were, in fact, two problems with the verse, taken in this way. First, they reasoned, why would Jesus pray for forgiveness for this recalcitrant people who had willfully rejected God himself? That was scarcely conceivable to many Christians. Even more telling, by the second century many Christians were convinced that God had not forgiven the Jews because, as mentioned earlier, they believed that he had allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed as a punishment for the Jews in killing Jesus. As the church father Origen said: “It was right that the city in which Jesus underwent such sufferings should be completely destroyed, and that the Jewish nation be overthrown” (Against Celsus 4, 22).

> The Jews knew full well what they were doing, and God obviously had not forgiven them. From this point of view, it made little sense for Jesus to ask for forgiveness for them, when no forgiveness was forthcoming. What were scribes to do with this text, then, in which Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing”? They dealt with the problem simply by excising the text, so that Jesus no longer asked that they be forgiven.

• Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
  
  

Actually, check out Going Clear. It's meticulously researched and touches on the Travolta thing matter of factly. A process Scientologists go through is called "Auditing", it's like a confession but it's frequently taped. The (apparently homophobic) leader of the church would joke about Travolta's homosexuality to his friends within the church. You get the impression that this information was held to use as a weapon should Travolta step out of line and when his stardom really exploded, he was moving away from the Church. It's very sad and I think Travolta is a very tragic figure.

I'm late to the party, so this comment may be buried, but /u/SergeantSully, I'd recommend you read some of the books by Bart Ehrman, a professor at UNC who attended Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Princeton Theology School. His works describe in extraordinary detail the evidence that the New Testament is entirely manmade and contradictory. You might start with Misquoting Jesus.

It's true...except for the famous litigation the Church of Scientology is responsible for. They have teams of lawyers to sue the shit out of people whenever they publicly say anything negative about the church. Furthermore, they are responsible for harassing the US government to bully their way to getting tax-exempt status as a religion.

Also, they abuse their followers. Documented in many places, lately in the fascinating book Going Clear by Lawrence Wright.

Bart D. Ehrman use to be a conservative Bible Scholar and he has written several books that summarize the errors and contradictions in the bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

Honestly though the New Testament is virtually untouched and unmodified when compared to the text of the Hebrew Bible. Literary critics, scholars , scientist and archeologist have proven time and time again that the stories in the Hebrew bible prior to Chronicles, Kings and Judges are pure invention of myth.

He was a pretty good Sci-Fi writer, but he was full-on crazy. I highly recommend reading "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" by Lawrence Wright. Hubbard had some real next-level shit going on.

1 - Mostly correct. There aren't many details of the crucifixion, and I wouldn't expect there to be (relatively common practice then, most would know what was entailed). Not a big deal either way though.

2 - Wrong.

3 - Almost entirely wrong. Much misrepresentation of the Bible and Xtian theology.

4 - Lots of wrong.

5 - big whoop.

6 - The broad overview is correct in that the Rapture as we think of it today and the emphasis on it is a fairly modern concept. Decent bit wrong otherwise.

7 - Last paragraph is reasonable...our modern conception of Satan is definitely different than the Church Fathers/etc. Lots of wrong in here though.

8 - Largely correct. Popular ideas about these things go far beyond the sparse details in the Bible and even in earlier Christian theology.

9 - The title is debatable (you can interpret Revelation to mean almost anything you want). Most of the rest is entirely bullshit.

10 - The title is correct. The rest of the section rapidly starts to fall down. While I haven't read Ehrman (don't have any of his books, and none @ local libraries), I think his quotes are being made too much of. Yes, there is a huge amount of variance between manuscripts. There is still in the eyes of interpreters and theologians a relatively good consensus as to what the NT is. Sure, we don't have the earliest manuscripts, and there are many problems, but the situation is nowhere near as dire as the blogger states.

Edit to add to 10: Here is a link to Ehrman's book. From the synopsis and reviews, it would appear his quotes are being used in support of a conclusion he would disagree with.

According to Misquoting jesus there were several meetings of the curch to decide what was allowed in the bible and what wasnt, on top of there being arguments about how to word things in each book and what to cut out of books. Some stuff in contradicted its self and they had votes to make changes that would support the position of the church at the time.

lawrence's wright book isn't called 'going clear: scientology, hollywood, and the prison of belief' just because they couldn't come up with a catchier title.

Uh, pretty much all of them. But some gems:

> The New Testament is far and away the best-attested manuscript from antiquity. The next best is Homer’s “Illiad,” for which our earliest extant copy was scribed 500 years after the original writing. For the New Testament, that time lapse is less than 50 years.

She offers no facts whatsoever here. On the contrary, scholars who actually research the bible for a living have shown that this is patently false. See Bart Ehrman or Karen Armstrong for examples.

> While the four Gospel writers chose different events of Jesus’ life to write about, they all gave a clear description of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.

No, they all gave conflicting accounts of important details surrounding his death and resurrection. All one has to do is read the relevant parts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to see this. You'd think she's never actually read the bible before.

Read these books in this order:

1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Harari. Overview of the history of humanity. Fascinating.
   
2. God: A Human History by Reza Aslan. Overview of the development of religion and ideas about God.
   
3. The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein. Overview of the archeology of ancient Israel and historical criticism of the Old Testament.
   
4. Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy. Overview of textual criticism of the Old Testament.
   
5. Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. Overview of textual criticism of the New Testament.
   
   This mini library is a sort of behind the scenes peek into humanity, religion in general, and the Bible specifically. You’ll never look at these things the same way again.
   
   Now, after reading these, return and report and give us word.

How do you know it recorded a ministry of any person, period?

Do you have proof of this alleged characters death, burial, and resurrection? If not, I assert Rand Al'Thor as the avatar of the creator.

The Bible was badly translated for 1,500 years, not just "at one point".

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

"For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions."

Maybe you could try showing that the Bible really isn't a reliable document in the first place. I'm currently reading Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus which is opening my eyes to the problems with the accuracy of the text in the New Testament.

For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is not found in early manuscripts of John and was most likely added at a later date. If your family believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, it makes it hard to explain why something added by a scribe later should be counted as scripture. And if part of it has a dubious textual past, it calls into question the rest of it.

Ultimately Western science only operates within a very specific set of philosophical assumptions. An intentional narrowing of parameters for the sake of understanding a particular part of creation in a particular way. But those philosophical assumptions are only justifiable within a Christian framework, and historically speaking, they only came about in the first place because of that framework.

EDIT: I should be more specific - a Catholic framework. Read a real history book, people.

EDIT 2: I know I'm going to get called out on this, so here are some history books which deal with Catholic engagement in science:

http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashinable-ebook/dp/B00D99NS4O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415805107&sr=8-1&keywords=atheist+delusions

A little first-thingsy (actually a lot, come to think of it), but he's blatantly trying to mimic the bombast of Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.

http://www.amazon.com/Catholicism-Science-Greenwood-Guides-Religion-ebook/dp/B00352KPS2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415805209&sr=8-1&keywords=catholicism+and+science

http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-ebook/dp/B0030CVQ5I/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805286&sr=1-1&keywords=christianity+the+first+three+thousand+years

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Illustrated-History-Civilization-Architecture/dp/1844837173/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805312&sr=1-11&keywords=christianity+illustrated+history

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/1435129636/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805358&sr=1-1&keywords=christianity+david+bentley+hart

DBH dials down the bitch in this book. I just remembered I have his pipe.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006Y35NEK?btkr=1

http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Reformation-Courses-Teaching/dp/B0016RNDC8/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415805470&sr=1-4&keywords=brad+gregory

You're killing me. I read about this exact phenomenon a while ago here but can't find what it's called anywhere onlibe. Now it's driving me crazy.

I'll look it up in the book when I get home.

just remember that (well read) mormons don't interpret polygamy as a flaw or a problem, it is viewed as a critical core doctrine that is not currently practiced due to historic government interference (even though the modern PR driven church does everything to avoid discussion of it and minimise attention to it).

Also, while you can easily see the flaws in her religion (I mean it is kooky and obvious) don't forget to apply the same critical eye to your own Christian beliefs which appear equally kooky and obvious to outsiders.

If you haven't already I'd recommend Ehrman to start