Best products from r/ChristianApologetics

>Really? Is there a place I can learn more about this?

I can recommend this publication of Pascal's Pensees, which has an excellent overview of the scholarship surrounding Pascal's postmortem publications.

As far as the errors of Pascal's wager, you shouldn't have too much trouble searching for "atheist responses to Pascal's wager". Although some don't recognize the simplicity of the error (false dichotomy of Christianity vs. Atheism), their responses, generally, are quite correct. Pascal's analysis leaves out the opportunity cost of the risk that Islam or some other religion will turn out to be true, and thus his analysis is incomplete. Also, Pascal essentially begs the question of whether the Christian God really is good. Of course Pascal would take that for granted, but unbelievers can be understandably skeptical on this point, given that this God supposedly killed a whole planet full of people in Noah's flood, and then commanded the Israelites to wage a bloody war against the Canaanites. If it is not established and agreed that the God of Christianity is good, then the cost/reward analysis becomes entirely subjective.

The situation this has created appears to me somewhat like this: Christians perceive the intuitive force of applying game theoretical considerations to the problem of religion, and thus continue to push Pascal's Wager, which superficially appears to them unproblematic, as it represents the problem of religion as it appears to them. But, the problem of religion appears to atheists in a very different way, which makes the problems of Pascal's Wager very obvious in their eyes. In the end, both sides end up talking past each other.

I think my approach could, possibly, bridge the gap. Instead of looking at the problem of religion at the level of "Which of these 4,000 religions is true?", I take the analysis back to the fundamental questions of religions: "Does God exist? and, If God does exist, Is God good?" This amounts to a nested double-dichotomy, and thus a true trilemma. Game theory principles can then be applied in a consistent, coherent way.

>But if something is justified just because it'll make you happier, doesn't that apply to anything?

The fact that something will "make you happier" can only be considered one aspect of the total analysis. And not a very useful one, all by itself. Qualitative judgments like that are not super helpful, unless we have reason to believe that they amount to infinitudes of reward or cost. For example, it is not just that the existence and goodness of God can make me "happy", but that the happiness that that kind of being is capable of giving is INFINITE. Eating dirt might make you happy for an hour or so, but a good God can make you happy forever (at least in principle).

The reason this is critical is because, while it is difficult to compare qualitative elements (and a game theoretical analysis is essentially a comparative analysis), we can nevertheless easily compare infinitudes with finitudes. For example, it is hard to compare the "good" experienced in a moment of heavenly existence (being characterized by peace, pleasure, spiritual fulfillment, love, etc.), and the "evil" experienced in a moment of earthly suffering. Both momentary experiences will be qualitative and finite. However, because the "good" to be experienced in heaven can, at least in principle, endure forever, while on the other hand the sufferings of earthly existence are temporary, we can easily see that the good of the end outweighs the evil of the means.

Now, the game theory analysis is more complicated than that, but the principle remains in effect. Infinite qualities do beat out finite ones.

Did you read the blog post I linked? I tried to be very exhaustive in my analysis of the potential costs and rewards associated with the basic options in the trilemma of the problem of religion. You should see that my argument rests on much more substance than the mere fact that believing in the existence and goodness of God makes me "happy". At least, I hope that one can see that. Obviously, I am open to criticism on that count.

>Is there any known answer to this question?

Hehe. Not that I've found in my research. It looks like there is an epistemological gap, which cannot be bridged by the normal operations of science or reason. There are many proposed arguments on the various sides of the argument, and I'm still working through some of them. Feser's Philosophy of the Mind presents many of the currently and historically popular arguments from all sides, in what is intended to be a fair representation. This book is intended as an introduction, and might be a good pickup for you as well.

While I have "adopted", for the time being, a hylemorphic dualist position, it is early days for me, and this may become subject to change. However, as a personal testimony, it makes sense of things that have always been vague, loose, unconnected bits of understanding for me. As someone else represented to me, learning the A-T metaphysical worldview has been like going down the rabbit hole of Alice in Wonderland, but in reverse. The nonsense in my worldview is rapidly being exposed, and the coherence of reality seems to be coming into focus.

>I believe that they can but I'm having a hard time understanding how they exist. Probably in a more simple way. Does that make sense?

Yes. I think you have good metaphysical instincts.

In my concept map, connecting all of the concepts of A-T metaphysics, God is in the center as Pure Being Itself (as opposed to one being among many). Among the attributes of God which Aquinas proves through the ways of negation, causation... and something else having to do with the Principle of Proportionate Causality... is "simplicity". The attribute of simplicity took me a long time to understand, and I resisted the idea the whole time. But then it made sense.

The reason I wanted to resist it is because I thought that God being "simple" meant He had to be one thing, and one thing only; and by "things" I kind of meant the way I perceive things in the natural order. For example, I have intelligence and power, and these things come through totally different ontological pathways. Thus, in me, intelligence and power are two different things. So I took intelligence and power in God to be the same kind of things as they are in me, and thus took it as nonsense to say that God was both intelligent and powerful, and yet "simple".

That is where Aquinas' doctrine of analogy helps. Intelligence and power still exist in God, but in God, they are not different things from each other. They are still "analogically" like the intelligence and power that are in me, being not exactly the same, while also not being completely different.

These concepts work out so that God's existence just is His essence, which just is His power, which just is His intelligence, and so on.

Now, as we branch out from God, we find things other than God MUST have an essence which is distinct from their existence. It is possible to have both incorporeal things as well as corporeal things in this realm. But corporeal things will be more complex than incorporeal things. That is because the "essence" of an incorporeal thing will not include matter at all, while still having elements belonging to the concept of a "form".

And it is argued that the only kind of "incorporeal substance" can be intellect (and will, but will is something that follows from intellect). So, intellect belongs in the region lying between the perfect simplicity of God, and the accident-prone complexity of corporeality. And we find ourselves as bridges between the incorporeal and the corporeal: rational animals.

Aquinas is not terribly long. I think you would get a lot out of it.

I've been a Christian for about a year and my weird personality defects and radical scepticism have left me with an obsession to uncover the truth of things. I am writing this as someone who believes in a Classical approach to apologetics but is sympathetic to the pre-suppostional. I have no formal education in philosophy or theology. I work full time and am doing a part time degree in software engineering - all study is done in personal time.

• My first recommendation would be to get into a daily Bible reading routine - at least go cover to cover once!
  
• Secondly get a good grounding in theology from a book like "Know the truth"by Bruce Milne.
  
  From there, theologically, one might want to consider slowly reading through other systematic books each year:
  
  
• Grudems Systematic Theology;
  
• Geislers Systematic Theology;
  
• Berkhofs Systematic theology.
  
  this will ensure a good doctrinal grounding - In terms of apologetics I would first approach the subject at the popular level :
  
  
• Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis;
  
• Making Sense of God by Tim Keller;
  
• The Reasons For God Tim Keller;
  
• Five Views on Apologetics (Zondervan publishing).
  
  I would recommend the following for dealing with popular Biblical complaints :
  
  
• The Big book of Bible Difficulties (Geisler);
  
• Is God a moral monster (Copan);
  
• Evidence that demands a verdict.
  
  For an introduction to philosophy I recommend:
  
  
• Philosophy for AS/A2 ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-AS-Level-Michael-Lacewing/dp/1138690392/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=philosophy+for+AS&qid=1567673712&s=gateway&sr=8-2 )
  
• Philosophy for A2 ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Level-Michael-Lacewing/dp/1138690406/ref=sr_1_14?keywords=philosophy+for+A2&qid=1567673723&s=gateway&sr=8-14 )
  
• On Guard
  
  For more advanced Philosophy:
  
  
• Philosophical foundations of a Christian Worldview;
  
• The Blackwell companion to natural theology;
  
• Natural Theology (Paley);
  
• Evidences for the Christian faith (Paley);
  
• Knowledge and Christian Belief (Plantinga);
  
• An Introduction to Metaethics (Andrew Fisher);
  
• What is this thing called knowledge (Routledge);
  
• What is this thing called Metaphysics (Routledge).
  
  For defence of core Christian tenets:
  
  
• Institutes of the Christian Religion (John Calvin)
  
• Jesus as God (The use of the word Theos in the new Testament)
  
  Science and Religion:
  
  
• Theistic Evolution
  
• Mind and Cosmos (nagel)
  
  Theres so much more I could recommend but I feel like thats a good start to get underway.On YouTube I recommend ReasonableFaith (they have playlists of their defenders class for multiple topics), InspiringPhilosophy and Capturing Christianity.
  
  There's a guy called Bruce Gore on YouTube who has a playlist called something like "Philosophy of Christian thought" - this is aimed at a group of 18 year olds he taught and is very accessible and a great introduction to the history of Christian philosophy.
  
  Gordon Conwell Theological seminary have a free online course called "Dimensions of the Faith" with hundreds of hours of audio lectures from a Masters course in theology - worth taking a look at!
  
  It's important to stay close to God whilst studying, cleave to His word and pray diligently.
  
  If you figure out a way to go to university and study this stuff let me know as I can't afford it!
  
  EDIT: I forgot to say I also highly recommend reading conversion testimonies:
  
  
• Confessions (Augustin)
  
• Real Lives
  
• Far from Rome, Near to God
  
• A man in Christ (Hudson Taylor)
  
  Additionally don't get discouraged by other peoples education, to quote John Locke:
  
  >"The Commonwealth of Learning is not at this time without Master-Builders, whose mighty Designs, in advancing the Sciences, will leave lasting Monuments to the Admiration of Posterity; But every one must not hope to be a Boyle, or a Sydenham; and in an Age that produces such Masters, as the Great-Huygenius, and the incomparable Mr. Newton, with some other of that Strain; ’tis Ambition enough to be employed as an Under-Labourer in clearing Ground a little, and removing some of the Rubbish, that lies in the way to Knowledge."
  
  Craig, Plantinga et al are old and Christianity needs a new generation to take hold of the mantle!

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!

> if anyone has any experience with college kids and what they like to ask.

First off, your typical college kid has not read anything on religion as sophisticated C.S. Lewis et al. I think it will be less the kids and more the professors that might ask tough questions. I think /r/atheism is about as sophisticated as college kids will be. So, not that I would encourage you to check out that sub, but those are mainly college kids posting overly simplistic things like "religion starts wars" or "faith is inconsistent with science", "The religious are bigots" etc...

Some professors may have read significantly more sophisticated things then typically show up on the sophomoric memes of /r/atheism. But for every one of them, there is someone like those I list below that have just as sophisticated counterpoint.

With that said here is my advice:

1. Don't close your mind at college. There are many great truths the "secular world" knows and you need to treasure them all up. Don't become the Christian who thinks humans rode dinosaurs like horses. Be prepared to learn and work hard to learn.
   
   
2. Though I argue way too much, be careful when arguing/debating about religion that you never lose your cool. Always be civil and respectful. I have seen more people converted by "good examples" then by intellectual argument.
   
   
3. When you see intellectual things tugging at your faith, please allow the Christian Philosophers to also give their side of the story. Some here troubling things and give up way faster than they should. Some notable Christian Philosophers to follow: William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Alexander Pruss, basically the several authors of the chapters of this book which are all top notch philosophers and deeply faithful, this site has some contributors that are top notch, etc...
   
   And some of them like William Lane Craig have sections of their website devoted to answering questions so if you have any tough questions do be afraid to ask these people. Just please, no matter what confusing question you run into, know that there are incredibly smart and respected intellectuals who have already addressed that confusing issue.
   
   Also, follow their blogs, newsletters, youtube debates and websites (as well as check out their books) so you always stay on top of the latest Christian arguments.
   
   
4. The sophomoric posts of /r/atheism are literally being posted often by college kids so that sub is a good example of what you will find other kids bring up.
   
   
5. And what ever you do, always make sure you do the "little things" like pray and read the scriptures. One danger intellectuals sometimes have is ignoring these little things that bring power like a grain of mustard seed.
   
   

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold the B-theory of time: time, as a whole, is static. The past, present and future are all equally "real". There is no real "coming to be" of events. Events exist alongside each other, but do not actually "occur" in the way they seem to from our point of view.

That sounds strange to me.

> The strength of my view is that it allows for an actual state of affairs in which God exists without creation.

The idea of God changing states is a problem.

> He is a temporal being.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand you properly but this seems like blasphemy.

> I still cannot understand a sense of the word "exist" in which God does not "exist". It seems to me that whatever "is" must also "exist".

I think we can deal with that, though maybe not right this minute.

> it seems pantheistic to say that God is all of reality.

Yes! I hope to never say such a thing. What I do say is that reality has its being in God, not vice versa. He contains it--it does not contain him, though of course he fills it. He is its environment or habitat. The ground of its being. He does not have an environment or habitat.

It's easier to think of it in terms of space, probably because we're more used to thinking of divine omnipresence. God created space. It has its being in him, not vice versa. It does not contain him yet he fills it. Same with time and every other created thing. And every other thing apart from God himself is created.

I just re-listened to this lecture from the author I recommended earlier. Great stuff. He defends the classical doctrine of divine eternity against Craig's and several related views. Highly recommended!

I got this book a week or two ago. I don't know whether I'll ever read it but Craig is one of the contributors and it might interest you.

Blessings!

/u/PacificBaroness You should try to be gentle, but nip this in the bud. Inaction will lead to him becoming more and more set in his ways. Confront him and calmly demand he defend his position rationally. Just keep asking questions, and avoid open statements. Say things like - did you know there are literally hundreds of famous scientists who are priests. And Science used to be about understanding God's creation - until it was invaded and taken over by an ideology that hates God and likes to pretend we hate science.

You should tell him about how:

• Science has barely anything to say about religion. Science is concerned with the material world and CANNOT make statements about God - who is literally outside of the universe. It's not a matter of trusting one or the other, since:
  
• There are scientific experiments in the actual Bible
  
• Science was fostered by Christianity. The Church build its biggest and best universities, fostering free speech. Oxford University was founded by Christians - as were many others.
  
• The Vatican owns some of the oldest scientific establishments. And their official site is here.
  
• Most Noble Prizes are held by Christians.
  
• The Church funds science, and has done since the beginning. They funded science back in the middle ages - including some of the first experiments into surgery.
  
• Priests have very often been scientists. A priest came up with Big Bang Theory. Atheists rejected the Big Bang originally because they thought it sounded like a 'moment of Biblical creation'. They now pretend it doesn't seem like that. Big Bang theory rocked atheism - which has always gravitated towards theories like 'the Solid State universe', where everything is unchanging and has no beginning. (I.e. 'it was always like this, and always will be')
  
• People literally lied to him saying that science and Christianity are opposed. Science has nothing to say about religion, but the 'other book of the Bible' is science.
  
• The Vatican accepts Evolution as true - and has done since the 1940s. The accepted the Big Bang theory over a decade before 'rational atheist scientists' could accept the universe had a begining. St Augustine himself cautioned that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. It's a clearly metaphorical story laden with allegory - meanwhile the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus take place in named locations. We also have proof they happened www.reasonablefaith.com
  
• The trend in science is now turning back towards faith. Most quantum scientists are Deists, last I checked. The reason is that Quantum physics destroys materialism.
  
  Everything from the moment of creation to the setting of rules like gravity would have to be absolutely perfect in order for us to exist. Every constant - from gravity to the strength with which atoms are held together - had to be very finely tuned for us to even have a bunch of dead rocks floating in space. For us to have life too.... that's a miracle on top of a miracle on top of a recurring tower of miracles that atheists want us to believe stacked ITSELF up. That's just daft. The universe is so unlikely, in of itself, that it's impossible it arose by chance. And that's before you bring life into it. Atheists get uncomfortable when you point out we evolved from rocks and dead water because the idea that there are rules set in place that allow this to happen imply that there's a God.

The notion of the Trinity is something that really has no analog in our experience. I think to understand this it requires, at minimum, a shift in thinking about what it means to be God. Typically when people hear that there is one God, the implicit assumption is that God exists as a singular instance. I think the shift is to think about God not as being equivalent with an instance, but an essence which can exist in multiple instances.

To be God means to partake in the essence of God; i.e., to have the attributes of God (eternality, aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfect, etc...) If you make this shift, it becomes more intelligible how there can be one essence that is God (monotheism) yet three persons who partake in that essence (the Trinity).

Just in the same way that the color red is a singular property, yet there are many instances of things which participate in having the property of being red. If I have three red chairs of exactly the same color, I would not say there are three colors among my chairs. I would say there is one color, red, and three chairs which are red. In the same way I believe when we say there is one God, we refer to the property, or set of properties that comprise the essence of what God is. It turns out that there are three persons who hold that essence. So there is one God (the essence), but three people (the instances) who are God.

It can still be hard for us to understand precisely what this means. I think it's helpful to think of a person in terms of consciousness. So when we say there are three people who are God, we are saying something like that there are three distinct conscious beings who each share God's essential properties, such that they are unified by that same essence. They are one God in the sense that they are united by the same attributes, the same will, the same personality features of love and justice, and so on. Yet they are distinct persons in that they do not share the same subjective experience, can be in community with one another, and can interact amongst each other in a way that is not equivalent to you talking to yourself alone in a room.

Ultimately because the Trinity has no earthly analog it will always be something of a mystery. I think if we had examples of such a tripersonal being in our earthly experience it would not be so much of a paradox. I don't believe that the notion is logically incoherent but it can be difficult to apprehend due to a lack of analogs.

I recommend you read The Deep Things of God by Fred Sanders.

Hi /u/KDTHEDESTROYER,

I've been through seasons of intense doubt. I nearly walked away from my faith at one point. I've been on a long journey, exploring the reasons why I now think Christianity makes the most sense.

On your question about prayer - God wants you to pray to him about anything and everything. He loves you and is with you through every struggle. Prayer is your way of spending time with Jesus and talking to Him about your troubles. He loves you so much, cares about them all, and just wants you to spend time talking to him.

If you're having trouble praying, a really good strategy I've heard is to pray the book of psalms. They help remind us that we can come to God with any problem and any emotion. We can just vent to God, because He loves us and wants to listen to us, and He wants us to rely on Him and share everything with Him.

If you're having serious doubts, the best book for me was The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

It covers a wide range of topics (and is pretty heady), but I find that the issue of doubt goes wider than any one issue.

Here is a really great (and free!) sermon series to start with:

https://gospelinlife.com/downloads/the-trouble-with-christianity-why-it-s-so-hard-to-believe-it/

A good book about heaven and the afterlife is Surprised by Hope by Tom Wright.

Again, this is some heady stuff. If you're okay with simple answers, PM me and we can talk through some stuff. And if you want deeper, complex, and nuanced answers, I can try to help direct you to some good resources that will be helpful for you.

One last thing - when I was going through doubts, reddit comments and internet searches almost never helped (they often made me feel worse!) Good books, community, and overall the work of God in my life is what really helped me through.

>To be fair to myself, I feel that I have to put God aside for a moment, and look at the facts, plainly, and as objectively as I can. And follow the evidence where it leads.

This is good. Start your investigation as an agnostic. Make truth your goal. So often, I hear that Christians doing investigations/research are committed to God no matter what. Well, then their investigation is biased from the start. Now, we're all biased no matter how hard we try not to be, but committing oneself to God before investigating one's religious beliefs seems like, for you, a bias that you're attempting to mitigate, and for that I applaud you.

When I was in your shoes, some Deist writers (like Thomas Payne in The Age of Reason) really got me thinking at first, and helped me to see that while there might be a God, there are some serious challenges to whether that God is the God of the Bible. For a while I started calling myself a Deist. I still flirt with the idea.

One interesting idea I initially learned from Payne is that Genesis mentions a place called "Dan" but the Bible doesn't tell the story of how the city of Dan was named until much later (like Joshua/Judges). Here's a blog post by a prof at a Baptist seminary explaining the issue in more detail.

For archaeology, especially that of the Exodus story, I'd look into writings by William Dever. He's more moderate than Finkelstein. The Blackwell Companion to the Hebrew Bible includes some writing by Dever, and also covers some other issues you're interested in - e.g. textual criticism, especially that of the book of Daniel, which is very interesting to me.

As for treatments of the Resurrection from the "other side" I'd recommend Doubting Jesus Resurrection by Komarnitsky.

Lastly, I found it helpful to find areas where consensus arguably exists among scholars of a given area of study. For example, while there is disagreement about the applicability of the Documentary Hypothesis, it's my understanding there's still consensus that multiple authors composed the Pentateuch. Other areas of consensus include late authorship of the latter part of Daniel where prophecies are made (which is relevant to the Christian because Mark, the earliest gospel, interpreted these prophecies as being about Jesus and the 1st century).

Anyway, I hope I've given you some interesting things to look at. Good luck!

These are four books and a lecture series that would certainly be good at getting you started, all of them are academic rigor level, so not something that you'll be able to flip through at the bus stop. They take a bit of time to digest.

• Evidence that Demands a Verdict- good summary of the reasons we have to think that Christianity is historically true.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198
  
  
• Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology- Natural theology, the arguments from reason for why we have good reason to think that there is a God. Written by academic philosophers.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854
  
  
• Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Worldview- Another excellent book providing a systematic narrative from the ground up.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Christian-Worldview-Moreland/dp/0830851879/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6HXK5P412QMRNR2XB37B
  
  
• New Essays on Divine Hiddeness- If God is real, then why doesn't he just appear to me? This collection of essays from both atheists and Christians explores that argument and offers (what I think) are some pretty good responses.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Hiddenness-Essays-Daniel-Howard-Snyder/dp/0521006104
  
  
• Faith and Reason Lectures by Peter Kreeft- Excellent lecture series by a philosopher who approaches the topic of religion from an introductory level and takes the time to examine the arguments for and against. A great place to start since it covers everything from a general perspective.
  
  https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Reason-Philosophy-Religion/dp/B001JHT8DI

> Hey there everyone, I’m just wondering how do we know that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by eye witnesses or people that had access to eye witnesses? Any help is appreciated and God bless!

1. On a scholarly level, check out the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd edition) by Richard Bauckham (PhD, University of Cambridge). However this is a very long academic tome, but it's extremely erudite.
   
   
2. On a popular but still intelligent level, a much shorter and more recently published book that has tons of information (including your question) packed into a short space is Can We Trust the Gospels? by Peter Williams (PhD, University of Cambridge). It's a great introduction for someone new to this topic.

I think I've heard more than one systematic theologian define it as the effort to make Christian doctrine comprehensible to a contemporary audience. That definition may be technically a good one, but I think it's also potentially misleading. It makes it sound as though systematic theology is almost a form of evangelism, where theologians try to address their audience's "felt needs." That's not a good description.

If you actually read a work of systematic theology, such these by Wayne Grudem or Louis Berkhof, you'll see that they are a topic-by-topic explanation of what, in the view of the author, Christianity teaches. Conventionally they begin with "theology proper", which is the study of God himself: the doctrine of the Trinity, God's perfection, His omniscience, omnipotence, etc. They'll cover things like the nature of revelation, creation, the fall, salvation, and so on. Usually it's not just the author sharing his thoughts. He's interacting with and responding to the work of his contemporaries and to concerns that contemporary people have with respect to Christian doctrines.

Nah, I'm totally with you on the importance of semantics. My old grad school mentor was really particular about it and I now see why. You're also dead on about the whole need for language/Japanese-speaking/etc example. I've just run into some people who confuse nature with ability so I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

The book I was actually referring to is actually called "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem. (genius title, right?) I got a chance to read it in college and I found it to be useful. Granted, that was 10 years ago and I'm sure the whole field has progressed but as far as I know, it's still relevant. You probably can find it cheap on half.com as well. It's quite a huge book but I found it to be quite interesting.

If anyone who is interested prefers a physical edition. I've also added an explanation for the price differences in my blog.

Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.

Part I Only.

Part II Only.

Explanation on pricing can be read here.

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism - Tim Keller

Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target - John Lennox

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God - John Frame

Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis - Greg Bahnsen

The last two are more in-depth philosophy-wise than the first three.