Reddit mentions of Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration

Absolutely. Introduction to Christianity is really great.

Jesus of Nazareth is also really great.

I can't find a copy of the actual text online but this is a good summation. The book is short and you can get it for just a few dollars used. Chapter 5 is the one about the "Our Father." It is a short book that you could easily read in a day or two.

Basically any books by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and/or Pope Benedict XVI (depending on when the edition was printed), you may want to skip his clearly catholic centred books (like the ones on liturgy and the like) if you're not Catholic but books like his Jesus trilogy or his Introduction into Christianity should be read by anyone who wants to learn more about Christianity regardless of denomination.

I would suggest Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

In this bold, momentous work, the pope—in his first book written as Benedict XVI—seeks to salvage the person of Jesus from recent “popular” depictions and to restore Jesus’ true identity as discovered in the Gospels. Through his brilliance as a theologian and his personal conviction as a believer, the pope shares a rich, compelling, flesh-and-blood portrait of Jesus and incites us to encounter, face-to-face, the central figure of the Christian faith.

Jesus of Nazareth. Pope Benedict puts higher criticism in its place in that under-appreciated book. His treatment is scholarly but accessible at the same time.

>Why is it a mistake?

Because X,Y,Z is not A,B,C. Arguing against incest and prostitution, which are found elsewhere in the Bible, does not imply a prohibition on something that does not have a single verse about in the entire Bible.

Recommending marriage to cut down on prostitution is not, logically, a recommendation against premarital sex. It would be a fallacy to say it is.

>Judah sleeping with Tamar is clearly wrong

By modern standards, sure. By ancient standards, no. If you read the chapter in question, there's no negative commentary given on the entire episode, other than Judah's embarassment when a 'ho runs off with his credit card. So to speak.

>Abraham was a real person, and made mistakes--this goes for all of them.

For having sex with his handmaiden? Not at all. His actions were unremarkable and in accordance with middle eastern traditions at the time. Again, you're projecting your modern morals on verses which absolutely do not agree with you.

>There's lots of cases of things that are wrong that aren't specifically condemned in the Bible!

There are many verses in the Bible that as a modern Christian you sit there expecting the Bible to condemn, but the condemnation never happens. You can either explain that as being a space constraint, or implied or whatever, but this is neither biblical, nor how the ancient Israelites read the verses.

The Bible never seems to be sparing in condemning people for bad behavior. I mean, when Nathan is chewing out David for stealing Uriah's wife, he tears into him in one sentence, and then tells him God would have given him more women if he wasn't satisfied with the women he had with another.

I've never heard anyone successfully be able to explain away Nathan's words that is consistent with the modern understanding of Christianity.


>What is this "modern Christianity", and what is its authority to define such things, and who speaks for it?

Too big a detour. There's a bunch of different denominations with different beliefs and claimed authority. In particular, evangelical Christians hold beliefs that aren't particularly biblical, but falsely appear to be holy, like their prohibition on drinking wine. (Which ignores Jesus' first miracle, for example.)

The book in question is the Pope's Jesus of Nazareth book (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416), but what I stated was hardly novel theology. It has been a core tenet in the church for a very long time, that we follow the moral precepts in the OT, and not the cultural ones.