The best
Christianity books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Christianity books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Christianity books:
Genesis isn't a science book. Genesis seeks to answer questions like: Who created the world? Is the world God? Whose fault is it that sin and suffering exist? What is God's response to sin and suffering? What does it look like to be obedient to God's call and accept a blessing? Can God work out His purpose even as humans freely choose to do wrong?
I'd recommend a good study Bible as a start, like this one.
Bart Ehrman is very representative of mainstream New Testament scholarship and literally wrote the textbook that is currently used in many university intro classes on the New Testament. I've never heard of Barnett, but looking at his book on Amazon, it appears to be an apologetic work, not an academic one. I can say that the answer to question in his title gets a hard "no" from all but the most theologically committed of credentialed scholars.
What class requires you to read apologetics? Are you at a private school?
Here is the Amazon link! Like I said, this is the best comprehensive New Testament text book I have come across in my study and research as a budding scholar of religion.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199757534
I hear you.
You may find the book Where the Conflict Really Lies by Plantinga pretty interesting. It's written at more of a college level (rather than the popular level) and it's an incredible book by one of the top Philosophers out there. It's a fantastic book.
>Also atheism is a lack of belief. Like I am not a believer in his non-existence, I just generally don't believe
I think a better term, then, is agnostic. Atheism tends to imply the belief that there is no God, whereas agnostic is more of a "not sure" position.
A couple more comments...
>If he will judge me, then he'll judge me for my actions, not whether or not I found the reasons for his existence convincing to me, therefore I try my best to do good regardless.
Sure, but recognize you're operating under the assumption of a works-based salvation. If God uses different metrics to judge you (i.e. doesn't really care about people doing good), then he won't judge you on your actions. Most people tend to think the Christian God doesn't necessarily care about good deeds. So, you're using a somewhat different definition / idea of what God does than me.
>because if I was sinning, I'd stay a sinner anyways
Just like literally everyone else on the planet ;P. Being a Christian doesn't mean you'd stop sinning.
>I am not immoral, because I am atheist, that is simply non-sense
I never suggested atheists are immoral. In fact, I know many atheists that display more compassion, empathy, and respect (moral virtues) than many Christians.
> Therefore, I want to learn about the Bible; not what it says but rather how it was written, received (and translated), preserved, and most importantly: how we can be sure we know these things (how studying the Bible works).
Then you want to read this. There is a bibliography if you're interested in delving deeper into the textual criticism arena.
Also, these IVP dictionaries are a go-to for any reference topic you are curios about. You can get on Amazon for cheaper, FYI, but that link lists all the books in the series. There is a bibliography after each article for further study if needed.
These are all solid books. A couple of supplements. First, I'd recommend a getting a good study bible, like this one.
If you want to go further, the scripture classes offered through STEP are good.
Do you have a good study bible? I recommend this one.
Adam and Eve didn’t exist. The bad fruit is folklore. Jesus died to save us from our sin and the bring eternal life.
I do believe in the Bible, but truth and literalness aren’t the same thing.
If you wish to argue that would should be a fundamentalist inerrancy holding person to be Christian, then we will be at a disagreement not only with me, but many within Christianity itself.
If you want to study more about how that all works, might I suggest Catholic Study Bible. While I’m not Catholic, their study Bible does a great job at explaining the Documentary Hypothesis and how to read the Bible in a way different than you seem to expect.
I highly recommend you try 'Lost Christianities' (Amazon URL) by Bart Ehrman. Prof. Ehrman is a renowned scholar of the new testament and in this text he describes the theological beliefs and history of the earliest christian communities, with a special focus on the competing gospels, epistles, and history of the very early christian communities whose beliefs did not end up making it into the mainstream christian tradition later on. This book was eye opening and set me on a path of serious discovery and interest in scholarship of early Christianity and late antiquity.
> My question is, how much then can we trust the bible in general? It was traditionally believed that the bible was put together and preserved through divine inspiration. If we're going to chock up mistranslations of words to human errors, why not start being critical about the texts that support universalism? Or why not question which books at all should be included in the bible or not?
If you want a really in-depth history of the compilation of the canon of the New Testament, check out Bruce Metzger's work The Canon of the New Testament. There are a lot of contributing factors to why we have the books we have. Some were reactions to heretics, others were practical ease of use, etc.
> Like, aion doesn't mean eternity, but means age.
This one's a bit trickier, given how long αιωνιος has been translated "eternal" and whatnot. Suffice it to say that the word doesn't answer a "for how long" question, but a "when" question. I think it could best be translated "the age of eternity." So when we see "eternal life" it means something more like "the life of the age of eternity." Essentially, the life that is grounded, and will come to fulfillment, in the "next age," i.e. the eschaton.
> That's pretty much it yes. I can't say for sure that it didn't happen but I don't feel like there is a way to reliably convince myself that it did happen either. There are too many assumptions; it happened too long ago.
Someone on another thread shared this book with me: https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/. Do you find the arguments here compelling?
A textbook called "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" was a main help for me - but for a long time in my teens I would pretty much only read the Gospels, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes because I hated most of the rest of the Bible so I was already "looking for a way out."
When you have a collection of sources concerning events, you compare consistencies with inconsistencies. While errors do exist in our compiled volume called the Bible, the consistencies overwhelm them. We have a really good idea of the details of the events. The Bible should be treated no differently than any other investigation.
Ehrman two thumbs down. Bruce Metzger much better. https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=14C1M1F7VPIHZ&keywords=metzger&qid=1659250744&sprefix=metzger%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-4
Bold of you to assume we'd have something ready by Tuesday!
Seriously, I doubt if any of us are going to share homilies ahead of the weekend. If you want some background on the readings, you could either look out for published homily helps (like these), or just get a good Catholic study bible (like this one).
Then yes, those are the sorts of secondary sources people should read to accompany their reading of the Bible.
Books like this as well: hhttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0190909005/ref=ox_sc_act_image_1?smid=A2L77EE7U53NWQ&psc=1
The New Testament is worth reading for the cultural literacy - it's neat to see what people believed 2000ish years ago, and how much of the Bible has shaped today's culture and parables in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Get a good textbook to help - I liked this one - and go to town. It's not THAT long, and it's worth it. Spoiler alert: Jesus is mostly chill and portrays himself quite differently in the first three Gospels than you might assume (John is where most of the theology comes from!) and it's really Paul that's the asshole.
It might have been common knowledge that Peter, a fisherman by trade, would have had no ability to read or write, so assigning Peter's story to Mark might have been the most logical invention for creating apostolic tradition of the stories in Mark.
Also, be mindful of your reasoning here - just because there are no extant counter-traditions doesn't mean they didn't exist. Nearly all competing literature from early Christian tradition has completely vanished. The most we know about competing traditions tends to come from what was gainsaid in preserved 'orthodox' literature. Check out Erhman's primer "Lost Christianities" https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499. Remember that every group of Christians believed their sect held the orthodox view that preserved the sacred tradition of the real Jesus as handed down by the original apostles. Every sect thinks that they are orthodox, and that their canon has merit.
We only have the preserved corpus of one sect - and only mentions or vanishing traces of the countless others.
I suspect that today you will learn that it was Georges Lemaître who first postulated the Big Bang theory. Lemaître was a Belgian Catholic priest. I’d like to say he was Jesuit, but not everyone is perfect.
There are many Christians who accept science when it comes to it comes to the explanation of the creation and development of the physical universe. And like them, I believe the universe is some 14 billion years old.
If you have an image that all Christians believe the universe was created on 23 Oct 4004 BC because of Ussher’s flawed dating system, then that is an image in need of some extensive rework.
And while you’re at it, I would highly recommend the Catholic Study Bible Personal Study Edition (ISBN 978-0190267230), available from Amazon or other bookstores. The CSB has some great notes and an introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis and for putting Genesis 1–11 in its historical context as being the mythological stories of the ancient Israelites.
I've read longer stuff on the development of the canon. :) So I'm familiar with how it wasn't clear-cut from the start and the process and the criteria that were appealed to. I was more interested in the Catholic "apologetic" answer to this question, which I can imagine Protestants using against Catholics. I was trying to think of one, and the answer I thought of was something like: "There was not clear answer - and that's just not a problem. It's not like the apostles had a New Testament!"
I honestly think that that answer works fine as a rebuttal. I was just wondering if there were some other answers, appeals to tradition or the bishops having a say or something like that
The Bible wasn't put together primarily by the councils. There's evidence of a canon taking shape pre 150 CE.
This is a highly recommended read on the subject.
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198269544/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_i_HAEWAFAX39B2N411XTV9?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
This detective helped me a lot as I'm very straight facts too:
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
I love Ukraine's history, and the people there were very, very friendly and understanding. My work was actually in two small towns within an hour of Lviv.
Again, off topic, but books I've enjoyed about Ukraine: [1](https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Sorrow-Soviet-Collectivization-Terror-Famine/dp/0195051807/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2FFMU8N5LM3WO&keywords=harvest+of+sorrow&qid=1644357910&sprefix=harvest+of+sorrow%2Caps%2C173&sr=8-1] and 2 I'm a big history and ARCH fan.
You can't get much more serious than Bruce Metzger, and his <em>The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance</em> remains a classic on the topic. It is definitely written for an academic audience, but when you say you want a serious scholar's work, I presume that's what you are interested in reading.
Can you send it to me?
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th edition
Publisher : Oxford University Press; 7th edition (Sept. 19 2019)
ISBN-10 : 0190909005
ISBN-13 : 978-0190909000
https://www.amazon.ca/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0190909005/
You'll love the book Cold Case Christianity . It explains how the Gospels are very different, not copies of anything, and how they are eyewitness accounts of the same events. There's enough details to make them different and enough interlocking details that they fill in each other's missing holes that most people wouldn't have noticed.
To answer your question, we should treat the entire Bible
>as if it was absolute and written by God himself
You might find the take below interesting!
From “Where the conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga:
“It is time to bring this chapter and indeed this book to a close. I argued in the earlier portions of the book that there are areas of conflict between theism and science (evolutionary psychology for example), but that the conflict is merely superficial.
I went on to argue in chapter 9 that there is deep concord between science and theistic belief; science fits much better with theism than with naturalism. Turning to naturalism, clearly there is superficial concord between science and naturalism—if only because so many naturalists trumpet the claim that science as a pillar in the temple of naturalism.
As I argue in this chapter, they are mistaken: one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and current evolutionary theory; that combination of beliefs is self-defeating. But then there is a deep conflict between naturalism and one of the most important claims of current science.
My conclusion, therefore, is that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic belief, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism. Given that naturalism is at least a quasi-religion, there is indeed a science/religion conflict, all right, but it is not between science and theistic religion: it is between science and naturalism. That’s where the conflict really lies.”
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199812098/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_WZ4XQ2AVWW6VTHME8FNP
>I’ve since found NRSV-CI bad by catholic’s
I don't entirely follow this sentence, but the differences between the different varieties of NRSVs are going to be very minimal. The most likely difference is that your edition is missing some books, not that there's anything wrong with the translation as you're reading it.
Just because the Church officially approves some versions doesn't mean that we thereby condemn other versions, especially not other versions within the same translation family.
NABRE is an officially Catholic translation (and very good!) as is the Jerusalem Bible. The NRSV, RSV, and ESV have officially approved Catholic versions. But that doesn't mean that other versions are somehow bad. I'd avoid the NIV, as that is an evangelical translation with some definite anti-Catholic bias, and (if you're just getting started on bible reading) avoid ones that are more paraphrases than translations, like The Message.
Of the Catholic(-approved) translations, the "odd man out" is the Jerusalem, which prioritizes beautiful prose over precise correspondance to the Greek or Hebrew source text. The others are all pretty literal.
If you're looking for a study bible, I think this is the best one out there.