The best Jesus, the Gospels & Acts books: Reddit reviews

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

This is all wrong what you said and the explanation would require much time and it exceeds the limit of this subreddit.

What I strongly suggest you to do is read "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ" by Brant Pitre. This book will debunk everything you said and everything those "scholars" said. It's really amazing book and it will answer all you question and I recommend it highly. Please promise that you will read it.

Bayes Theorem's application depends entirely on how precisely the parameters and values of our theoretical reconstruction of a real world approximate reality.  With a historical question, Carrier is forced to think up probabilities for each parameter he put into the equation.  This is a purely subjective process - he determines how likely or unlikely a parameter in the question is and then decides what value to give that parameter.  So the result he gets at the end is purely a function of these subjective choices. 

In other words: garbage in/garbage out.

So it's not surprising that Carrier comes up with a result on the question of whether Jesus existed that conforms to his belief that Jesus didn't - he came up with the values that were inevitably going to come up with that result.  If someone who believed Jesus did exist did the same thing, the values they inputted would be different and they would come up with the opposite result.  This is why historians don't bother using Bayes Theorem.

So what exactly is Carrier doing by applying this Theorem in a way that it can't be applied?  Apart from being incompetent, he seems to be doing little more than putting a veneer of statistics over a subjective evaluation and pretending he's getting greater precision. 

Not surprisingly, despite his usual grandiose claims that his use of Bayes Theorem is some kind of revolution in historiography, his book <em>Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus</em> (2012)   has pretty much sunk without trace and been generally ignored by historical Jesus scholars and historians alike.  His failure to convince anyone except a gaggle of historically clueless online fanboys means that Carrier is most likely to remain what he is: an unemployed blogger and general nobody in academia.

It’s simple. There’s no evidence anywhere in the world that any human being has been brought back from the dead after being dead for three days. The Bible is a claim, not evidence. Why would anyone believe that Jesus was resurrected? You would have to prove it first to claim there’s no argument against it.

This book might give you some good perspective.

How Jesus Became God : the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061778192/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_rSL8CbN6DVTPZ

Sort of indirectly related to SneerClub subjects, I hope that's ok. Apparently this guy Richard Carrier - of course not himself a New Testament specialist at all - tried to show that Jesus did not exist by waving the Bayes wand. Needless to say, it got rather bad reviews in professional journals. It seems a pretty astonishing example though of the belief that by applying Bayes' formula to any subject, you don't need to actually know anything about it...

Other scholars think the ratio is more likely to be 0%. Source: Richard Carrier.

If he wants something easier to read, I'd recommend The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre. There's also audio recording for this subject matter from him and I believe it brings up C.S. Lewis's Trilemma (Lord, Liar, Lunatic). Afterwards, I'd suggest Brant Pitre's other books because he has a number of books that show how the Jewish Roots and Old Testament writings find its fulfillment in the New. If he wants to get deeper into it there's also a textbook sized Catholic Intro to Old Testament book from Brant Pitre and John Bergsma

&#x200B;

Dr. Brant Pitre answers the following in the book:

• Were the four Gospels really anonymous?

• Are the Gospels folklore? Or are they biographies?

• Were the four Gospels written too late to be reliable?

• What about the so-called “Lost Gospels,” such as “Q” and the Gospel of Thomas?

• Did Jesus claim to be God?

• Is Jesus divine in all four Gospels? Or only in John?

• Did Jesus fulfill the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah?

• Why was Jesus crucified?

• What is the evidence for the Resurrection?

&#x200B;

“This book will prove to be a most effective weapon… against the debunking and skeptical attitudes toward the Gospels that are so prevalent, not only in academe, but also on the street, among young people who, sadly, are leaving the Churches in droves.” – Robert Barron, author of Catholicism

I have seen the movie years ago. Simply put, the movie is a lie. It cites nothing but lies and it's incredible how someone can believe that movie to be true.

When it comes to Tacitus and Josephus it is generally accepted by scholars that they mentioned Jesus and the Crucifixion. Yes there might be some part of it that has undergone some interpolation but no scholar doubts the authenticity of fact that they do mention Jesus and the Crucifixion. That being said there also many more ancient authors who mentioned Jesus, Christians, Crucifixion, Christian practices, etc. and no one doubts their authenticity.

When someone really understands the history behind New Testament then there is really no need for all the ancient historians and writers because this alone will be sufficient to make a case.

When it comes to similarity between Jesus and other pagan gods I can only say that in that movie they lied about those gods. There are great video that compare Jesus and different gods. I haven't seen every video from this playlist but from the few videos there I concluded that it is good so have a look.

Brant Pitre. Have a look here.

Yes, Jesus existed. He was most likely an apocalyptic prophet/preacher.

If you can stomach a read, Bart Ehrman has written a number of books. I'm currently reading this one and it's just fascinating. I'm not much of a reader and it's slow progress for me, but I'm really enjoying learning who Jesus likely was. He was in some ways, more amazing than I had previously thought.

I'm no expert at all in this area, but as a pure layman I thought Brant Pitre made a strong case for something along the lines of the Augustinian hypothesis in:

The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ: Pitre, Brant, Barron, Robert: 9780770435486: Amazon.com: Books

As far as I recall (been a while since reading it), Pitre argues Matthew first based on the early church fathers saying that is the case. He does not commit to which of Mark and Luke is second/third, but again relying on the church fathers argues that Mark is John Mark and wrote his gospel based on oral stories from Peter (and presumably also with access to Matthew), and Luke used Matthew (and maybe Mark?) as a source. He also makes an interesting comment that one source claims 2 Corinthians 8:18 (we are sending the brother of whom the praise in the gospel [is] throughout all the churches) is referring to Luke. That would make sense to me, since Luke was Paul's traveling companion, and as there seem to have been a lot of "famous" preachers known to the Galatians (see 1 Corinthians, first chapter) saying the brother is a good preacher would not be much of an identification. But, if "gospel" refers to a written gospel in that passage then it might make sense that would be sufficient identification, as likely only one traveling companion of Paul had written a gospel.

>Any quick TLDR for the point why the Bible is reliable to get my head in the right space?

For a Catholic take, you could start by listening to some of Brant Pitre's discussions of this, e.g. here (there are others online, this is just one I was able to find quickly). I'd highly recommend his book as a follow up. It's not lengthy nor is it a difficult read.

What are you converting from? What are some of the things that serve as stumbling blocks to your conversion?

For a generic recommendation for you or anyone I'd recommend "The Case For Jesus" by Brant Pitre. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483

It is pretty quick/easy read but provides good information on the historical perspective of the Bible and specifically on the Gospels and life of Jesus. It is a nice counter to most of the nonsense historical-critical nonsense that we always hear which casts doubt on the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Gospels.

One book you may want to check out is by Catholic Biblical scholar Dr Brant Pitre.

The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0770435483/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_FW43CJ4MD1J5AD50EQ6C

Also, you can hear/watch him debunk the unfounded and comical claim that the Gospels were originally written by anonymous authors (something Ehrman preaches). He also goes into this in his book above, among other aspects.

Were the Gospels Really Anonymous https://youtu.be/dwGC3hoowAQ

> Sure, I think that there is some historical evidence in the Bible

The Bible is not a historically accurate document. It's a fairy tail. I wouldn't look for answers there. Also, check out this book (also available as an audiobook): &quot;On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt&quot; by Richard Carrier. The best damn deconstruction of the New Testament I have ever listened to. You will learn more about how the Bible was constructed than any Christian in bible study. It should be required reading for this sub.

> how to be a Christian

Recognize that you're a sinner who deserves punishment and place all your hope for righteousness before God in what Jesus did on the cross. Now follow him. Read the Bible and do what it says.

>how to make sure that my faith is the right one

Seek out the evidence that Christ really rose from the dead. This is the founding event of Christianity. If it happened, Christianity is true; if it didn't, it's false.

It did happen. He was executed in public, buried in a public place, left an empty tomb in that public place, was seen by many people at many times in many different circumstances -- including by unbelievers -- who all began proclaiming his resurrection in the same city in which all of this happened, even with the threat of death hanging over them because of it.

Skeptics will tell you this didn't happen. History will tell you it did.

In addition to other comments, here you go:

https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

And you will note that anytime anyone brings up an example of a miracle, even if their doctor or nurse supported that interpretation, there's always an excuse about why it doesn't count. There's certainly observation bias on each side, but let's no one pretend the indefensible "science proves miracles wrong" group doesn't have it in spades.

There were no historical official records such as birth certificates and the like. The kind of records you could expect for Jesus would be mentions by Jesus’ contemporaries or by historians who reported what they knew, or thought they knew, about Jesus.

Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote about every important movement or person of whom he knew in Judea, but never mentioned Jesus or a movement founded by Jesus. Nicolaus of Damascus (official court historian of Herod the Great) could have mentioned the amazing events surrounding the birth of Jesus, and Justus of Tiberias (King Agrippa’s personal secretary) could have mentioned the events in the life of Jesus, but it seems that neither did. Richard Carrier says, in On the Historicity of Jesus:

>We do not have the works of Nicolaus or Justus. but we have the works of Josephus, who used them as sources, and we can safely conclude that if either author had mentioned anything about Christ, Christians or Christianity, later Christian authors would have preserved at least mention of it, if at the very least to rebut it or make note of their attestation to Jesus or early Christians or Christianity.

The first-ever non-biblical reference to a Jesus of history is in the Annals of Tacitus, dating to around 116 CE.

Assuming you actually want to know the answers to these questions, I suggest you read "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483), as he answers these questions in a systematic and scholarly way.

I recommend Bart Ehrman's book "How Jesus Became God".

>The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

I listened to the Audible version.

How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

Sorry. You lost me with the first assertion: "The original church established by Joseph Smith was an authentic copy of the New Testament church."

For one, I don't think Christ ever established "A Church." That seems to be an invention of later decades.

Secondly, the "restoration" evolved significantly over the lifetime of JS and it would be hard to pin down the point at which the greatest correlation could exist. For example, priesthood authority, including the offices, changed dramatically over that time. The nature of God, as taught by JS, initially matched Methodist modalism (as seen in the BoM and first First Vision accounts) to corporeal henotheism. (There are probably more sophisticated ways to describe this.)

Third, (related to the first) the credibility of the New Testament must be established. Many New Testament books have dubious or incorrect authorship. Of the remaining, one must determine a method for identifying credible attributes of "the true church," as well as a method for arbitrating discrepancies. Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" provides a framework around which to structure an argument in favor of Christian literalism and Biblical historicity.

If we take the New Testament as a given, the first and second issues must first be addressed.

In spite of all this, it is clear that the LDS Church has dramatically changed since its origins. The Book of Mormon, on which a theological basis is presumed, actually has very little to do with the doctrine and structure of the modern church. It is only used for moral lessons. The same might also be said for other restoration scripture.

> this is a thread about ... Joshua

You're right, my mistake. Sorry. We're having two simultaneous discussions and I got mixed up about which was which.

> It means you need to interpret the text according to the grammar and historical context

OK, fine. So you read Joshua "according to the grammar and historical context" and conclude that it means something other than the plain meaning of the text. But if you do the same thing to Genesis you can likewise conclude that it too means something other than the plain meaning of the text. For example, Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly two different accounts written by two different authors. (The transition is actually at chapter 2 verse 4.) One refers to God as "Elohim" and the other refers to God as "YHWH". One says that animals were created before man, and the other says man was created before the animals. So the natural conclusion is that it's all just mythology. What's good for the Joshua goose is good for the Genesis gander. You can even do the same thing to the New Testament.

I recommend looking into Bart Ehrman's books. Dude used to be a Christian, now he is a secular (agnostic?) professor of religious studies. He's written a lot about the historical Jesus and early Christianity. He's interested in it purely from an academic perspective and has no interest in converting or deconverting anyone. You might want to start with How Jesus Became God, since it will answer the question you asked here, but any of his books are a good read.

There is single source to reference. There is a lot being written on this topic currently as new archeological artifacts are being discovered pretty regularly.

This is a good place to start though: https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=ada7fff8-e95f-4358-9ec7-57d86afe280b

The fact is there are zero contemporaneous accounts Jesus. So, not only do lack the ability to say Jesus was a real individual, we most definitely have no fucking clue what he might have said even if he did exist.

Well that’s not what the current historians believe.

Richard Bauckham has written a 600 page book giving evidence that all 4 gospels are eyewitness.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Or if you prefer to watch short YouTube videos that use his book

Reliability of the New Testament

I wasn't suggesting that you had. The argument for consensus was made a couple posts earlier.

Carrier is a historian (B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history)) and more than qualified to give an expert opinion.

I have read both Ehrman's book as well as Carrier's. I went in skeptical of mythicism, now I'm on the fence. I would say that it's definitely plausible and that anyone claiming certainty one way or another or that there is plenty of evidence in support of either hypothesis is either poorly informed or lying. (Note that even Carrier doesn't say Jesus didn't exist - he says there is about a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus did exist.) If it's a subject you are interested in, you owe it to yourself to read Carrier's work with an open mind.

There are already a lot of good ideas in these comments, so I’ll only add this…

While I don’t believe it is fruitful to try to convince someone that the Bible is inspired by the LORD, I do believe it is fruitful to help them see the New Testament as a reliable source to describe who Jesus is and that his Resurrection happened. There’s a lot of apologetics out there for the historicity of the New Testament. I learned a lot about this from The Case for Christ, but I assume there are more in-depth resources out there.

I would say the goal of any spiritual conversation with a non-believer should be helping them see that Jesus is the risen Lord. Anything else the Spirit will work out when they are a believer.

I highly respect Professor Ehrman and have read a lot his scholarly work. He's an excellent historian. But he is still just one academic (in a very populated field) who works with scant historical evidence and presents his best expert opinion...not an authoritative pronouncement.

Other highly respected scholars posit that the claim of a historical Jesus is very suspect. One of those historians is Richard Carrier. He presents very persuasive arguments as to why there likely wasn't a single historical Jesus.

The unfortunate reality is that we do not have access to the quality of evidence that would settle this question with expertise AND self-evident authority. If you want to stay within the bounds of rationality, then a high level of certainty on this question is just impossible. You're never going to get there. Without a time machine we are out of luck.

Which is why I took issue with the bold 100% assertion that "He existed". If you're going to make a claim like that about the historicity of Jesus, then you are operating openly in the realm of hope outside of reason. That's religious territory.

Academics like Ehrman and Carrier are not making faith-induced claims. They develop academic opinions but NEITHER of them would tell you their opinions support 100% certainty.

Hmm, so you scraped my profile it seems. Anyway, four days before I posted that question in r/OrthodoxChristianity, I had written on my newsletter regarding John 17:3. I already knew what was the right and traditional interpretation, but just to know what other Orthodox Christians thought about it, I posted that question. Nevertheless, u/aletheia, who commented under the post gave me a summary of my interpretation - the Father as God Most High, as the cause of the Godhead, is called the 'only true God'.

Augustine didn't corrupt manuscripts to change the word-order, nor did he stop using the word-order. He just suggested that this is the right way to understand John 17:3, considering the context. Interpretation of a verse is not equal to changing it.

Yes, there are pieces of evidence for the Johannine authorship. You may want to read Jesus and Eyewitnesses. Or there is the free PDF here.

In my understanding, the Catholic Church in the West forbade it, fearing heresies. Yeah, seems fishy.

I hope you might understand this by now - Augustine didn't change anything. He just offered an understanding of the verse. Arians had used this verse against the deity of Jesus in the 3rd century, so this was pretty controversial.

I don't understand what you mean by saying 'you have the logical problem of the Trinity included in it'. What exactly is this 'logical problem of the Trinity'?

Yes, Augustine seems to have taught something related to the Original Sin, but not exactly Original Sin though. I have read his writings around this topic, so know a bit.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

Even Dr. Richard Carrier, who is one of the key proponents of the theory that Christianity is based on other myths, argues that Zeitgeist is rubbish. Dr. Carrier wrote:

>Mythicist Milwaukee & King’s Tower Productions are going to produce a well-researched film about the Jesus myth theory that deliberately eliminates the flaws of past films (like that awful Zeitgeist thing) and pays attention to the best scholarship on the issue, while also introducing a lot of entertaining features as well as educational ones. (A Better Movie on the Jesus Myth)

Also, Zeitgeist is full of conspiracy theories (e.g., the 09/11 conspiracy theory).

I agree with you, we are instructed to go and preach, heal by miracle and cast out devils.

As a former atheist(I'm sorry for using this card) I'm sorry to see most Christians have so little faith, because most have only been exposed to miracles through con men and babbling heretics.

Not only are people visibly healed, cured from stage 4 cancer overnight etc. But many of these things are recorded by doctors themselves and by people who have lots to lose from testifying.

We need to talk about this more.

I recommend Craig Keener's book on miracles :
https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525

Craig Keener documents many miracles in his 2-volume set here:

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801039525/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_236M2TBBFAVGQ1FXA0PN