#19,968 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Reinventing Jesus
Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 6
We found 6 Reddit mentions of Reinventing Jesus. Here are the top ones.
or
Specs:
| Height | 8.5 Inches |
| Length | 5.5 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 0.91932763254 pounds |
| Width | 0.75 Inches |
After reading through your responses here, I feel the need to clarify for you exactly what an argument is and what it can do. You list examples like evolution and heliocentrism and ask how those might affect one's faith. In reality, these arguments do nothing to disprove God, and are in fact separate issues entirely.
The way you've been speaking so far, it seems like the arguments you're assuming are these:
and
Do you see the leaps here? The statement "God does exist" is not a logically valid inference from these arguments. They, in fact, cannot say anything about whether or not God exists; such is simply not a possibility in the premises. What they really can do is this:
and
Now, does "the church was wrong [on this occasion]" and "some Christians are wrong" equate to "God does not exist?" No. It means that it is a logical possibility, yes, but it does mean that is certain or even probable.
In addition, you'll find that these arguments are not conflicts at all for the vast majority of Christians, especially those who frequent r/Christianity. This is why:
You should also be aware of the philosophical foundation for science. Science is inherently naturalistic, which means that it cannot interact in any way with things outside of nature (related: it is also incapable of 'proving' anything, only math and logic can do that; science can only disprove and assume that which is most probable given the evidence). This includes God, as he exists outside of the universe as we perceive it. Dealing with things outside of nature is the realm of metaphysics, and metaphysics is largely philosophy and logic, not science. Thus, any argument that claims "science has proven God does not exist" is an argument resetting entirely on false beliefs about what exactly science is. This is what others in this thread have been saying.
Given all that, you'd do well to know exactly what arguments do set out to disprove God - and there are very few of them that do so in a valid way. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theogica, was in the habit of stating a point, giving three positions on this point, and then stating his view which was contrary to the three and then arguing against the three first points. In his section on "Whether God Exists?" he only lists two reasons; this is because very few of the arguments that claim to disprove God can actually logically do so. These are the arguments he lists:
and
Note that these aren't the arguments exactly as he lists them; I've updated them slightly to better reflect how they are used today.
The second argument is yet another argument making a logically invalid conclusion from the premises. Whether or not mankind needs God to exist is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Thus this argument falls flat.
The first argument is known as the Problem of Evil, and it has been a huge issue for theists for a very long time. It has not been answered in a way that most theists find existentially satisfying, meaning that no matter how the problem is answered, evil is always a big problem in everyone's life, and it's always hard to understand why God won't just take it away. That said, the Problem of Evil relies entirely on this premise:
We have to ask is that really so? And the answer is, we have no idea if it is or not. It is logically possible that an all-good, all-poweful being could co-exist with evil, even if we don't know how that is possible. Ultimately, this argument is an argument from ignorance, meaning that it relies on the fact that we don't know something to make its claim (The "God of the gaps" argument does the same thing, by the way - it says "Look, we don't know how x or y happen, therefore God"). This is a logical fallacy, and as a result the problem of evil also cannot logically disprove God - though the answer does very little to comfort someone dealing with evil.
I highly recommend you watch Tim Keller on the Problem of Evil at Google. Tim Keller is a big-name pastor in New York in addition to being a popular apologist (meaning one who defends an intellectual stance - in this case, Christianity).
I feel it's worth mentioning what is probably the most common argument against theism, and especially Christianity, most especially on the internet. This is the argument:
You should be able to tell by now that this argument is not a true argument at all. The conclusion has nothing at all to do with the premise. It sounds crazy to some people that Christians believe in life after death, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist. It sounds crazy to some people that some Christians believe that bread blessed by a priest becomes the body of Christ, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist (a lot of the popular arguments against evolution use this tactic, and are also invalid). This tactic is the one most commonly used by Richard Dawkins.
Ultimately, that 'argument' fails because it relies entirely on the perception of the individual and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It merely disguises itself as logic.
Now, if you really want to read more about why people believe God can logically exist, you want to look into books on apologetics. There are a whole lot of those, as it has been a popular topic for hundreds of years now, but two that are quite accessible and quite strong are The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who I mentioned above, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, of Narnia fame. These two books deal with how God can logically exist, but there are a wealth of books on other apologetic issues, like how we can trust the Bible to be accurate (Reinventing Jesus is a very good book for this issue).
Edit: error corrections, some paranthetical statements.
Okay, this is still a very broad question, but one of the best experts to go to on this subject (in my opinion) is professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Wallace is currently heading up the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where he and his team are compiling all known ancient manuscripts and digitally photographing and labeling them so that other scholars can study and read them online. In the process of doing this, he and his team are discovering a number of previously unknown manuscripts (for instance, a possible 1st century fragment of Mark that will be published in scholarly journals this year).
In this talk on the subject, Dr. Wallace mentions Metzger's thorough and extensive academic-leaning work Canon of the New Testament, and the cheaper, more popular level book Reinventing Jesus co-authored by Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski, and M. James Sawyer. You might also be in interested in Dr. Wallace's New Testament: Introductions and Outlines where he goes into both critical and tradtional examinations of the NT and their inclusion into the canon.
For just a basic outline on canonicity of the NT, most of the books of the NT had to be early (so published in or around the 1st century), had to be authored by an Apostle or someone close to the Apostles. Early on there wasn't much concern for canonicity in the early church. Most of the early church used the Septuagint as their Bible, and just didn't think of the later writings in quite the same way as we do, but they recognized their inspirational nature and valued them. Then a heretic named Marcion came along and formed his own canon. He felt that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and so decided to remove anything pro-Jewish, he reworked Luke, and did a number of other things. The early church was pretty freaked out about this, and decided that they needed to compile an authoritative list of books/letters to ward off heretical manipulation of what had already been received as inspired and authoritative.
One of the early examples we have of the early canon can be found in the Muratorian fragment dating to approx. 170 AD. It includes most of the books of the NT excluding James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. A number of the ECFs (early church fathers... important post-Apostolic Christian writers) mention the authoritative books of the NT by name. The Gospels are mostly anonymous (there are a few internal indicators in Luke and John about who authored them), but the ECFs handed down to us the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other authors in the ancient writings were substituted for the name of the traditional authors. By the time Constantine came into power, and made Christianity the state religion, the canon had been closed and pretty much all the major books accepted for a long time with a little bit of disagreement between books like Revelation and Hebrews and a couple of the Pastorals. A number of councils in the 4th century pretty much settled the matter. The earliest complete manuscript copies we have date from around this period as well, so Codex Vaticanus 325-350, Codex Sinaiticus in 330-360, Codex Alexandrinus 400-440, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 450.
Something else should be mentioned about the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke share many commonalities with one another. So much so, that most scholars believe these books depend on one another in some way. These Gospels are called "synoptic", that is syn-together, or same and opsis-view (like where we get the word "optic" for optic nerve). John is so unlike the synoptics that he's usually handled separately from them, and is also considered later than the others.
Now these similarities aren't so surprising with Luke, Luke tells us that his book is a compilation of testimony (Luke 1:1-4), but that doesn't really explain, for instance, how Matthew is so similar to Mark.
An early church father named Eusebius quotes from an earlier Bishop named Papias about the compilation of the Gospels. Papias lived in the 1st and early 2nd century, and was a student or a hearer of the Apostle John. Papias says,
>Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Many modern scholars don't exactly agree with Papias' rendition of things though. The prevailing theory in academia today is the source theory, and in particular the source theory called Markan Priority. Basically its argued that Mark is the simplest, and thus earliest of the synoptics, and that Matthew and Luke knew of and borrowed from Mark as a source for their books. But there also commonalities in Luke and Matthew that are not found in Mark, so its theorized that along with Mark there was probably another book or at least a common tradition shared between them that has since been lost to history. This book or sayings have been labeled "Q", which comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source". ALSO, Matthew, Mark and Luke have completely original material that they share with no other books. Now, there are some scholars (currently in the minority) that buck against this source hypothesis, that reject Q, and suggest Matthean priority. Basically Matthew was first, and Mark borrowed from Matthew, and Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew. This is called Augustinian Hypothesis.
As for the Old Testament, that's a whole nother story. The OT was compiled throughout centuries. It should probably be kept in mind that academia for the OT is very very secular compared to that of the NT. I'm not really sure what the poster US_Hiker was on about in his reply to you, but anyways, its theorized that the books of the OT weren't written and edited in the periods they claim to be written and edited. The prevailing theory for the OT is called the Documentary Hypothesis. For a long time, the accepted hypothesis was labeled JEPD, and this stands for the following sources: Yahwist (or Jawist), Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly. Its a pretty confusing theory that says that writers of the Old Testament regularly redacted and changed the order of the OT during different periods. And that the OT was compiled from approx. 950-500 BC. The theory has been manipulated and altered a number of times, especially when embarrassing archaeological finds like the silver scrolls found at Ketef Hinnom pushed some writings far further back than were expected by scholars. In my opinion, a great, very thorough, slightly academic book to read on modern theories about the Old Testament would be professor Richard S. Hess' Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey.
Concerning archaeological finds, or the lack thereof for say, the Exodus, I think one's presuppositions have a lot to do with what you accept or not. If you're an unbelieving archaeologist, you might expect to find some noticeable traces of an enormous group of people wandering the desert for 40 years. So far, we can't find any. But, if you're a believer who agrees with Genesis that God provided for these people with manna from heaven that rotted away if stored up, or of clothes that miraculously never wore out, then you're not going to find a whole lot in a desert. There are a handful of scholars that also believe the entire Egyptian dating system that scholars use as a measuring tool for the pre-Roman world is off by a few dynasties. One of the better known archaeologists known for his new chronology of the Egyptian period is egyptologist David Rohl. His ideas are currently on the fringe, but seem to be gaining some traction. His book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest is a beautiful and very interesting book on the subject.
Ok, so, sorry that was so long, but like I said, this is a very very broad subject. If you have any questions, let me know.
Have a terrific day!
I respect Bart Ehrman as a textual critic, but the conclusions he comes to in his research are illogical in light of the data. Daniel Wallace is a frequent debater of him and demonstrates this well. You can check it out in this lecture. We can know what the New Testament originally said with up to 99 percent certainty. Even Bart Ehrman will concede no major Christian doctrine is eroded by textual variants.
It sounds like you've been under the influence of mainly anti-Christian scholars (not saying Christians don't have an agenda either – everyone does) who have given false conclusions to the data. I would highly recommend Reinventing Jesus. If you can't afford a copy (I know what it's like being a student. I just finished my undergrad.) I can send you one if you'll promise to read it. The authors address claims made by Ehrman, Dan Brown, the Jesus Council and others.
One can start with Reinventing Jesus and the The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus
For people who are interested in this topic
I have been picking up the most boring books and articles over the past few years on this topic because to me it is one of the most interesting topics on the planet. Below are some resources which I first used when finding & approaching this subject.
I highly recommend these short, fairly-down-to-earth books:
Some articles by one of today's leading Textual Critics (he has been in many public debates with Bart Ehrman [the guy in the OP article])
I'd be happy to try and tackle any questions about the subject, at the very least I know I can point you to the right place to ask.
edit: formatting
Reinventing Jesus – by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace.
This book covers quite a bit of ground, including on the cannon of scripture. It is written by theologiana who are also professors, so the writing is not dry but engaging. It covers well worn ground, but puts its topics together in a response to thigns like 'The DaVinci Code' and other attacks on historical Christianity.
Reinventing Jesus
I highly recommend that you check it out!