The best
New Testament Bible Study books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of New Testament Bible Study books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning New Testament Bible Study books:
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.
> history is my weakness
Then work on this. We actually have an abundance of historical evidence in favor of Christianity. I find it’s actually one of the stronger areas for apologetics.
You could read NT Wright’s book: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) https://amazon.com/dp/0800626796/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_5WRAZC5BGKX1YSS65K5V This book is probably the strongest argument I’ve ever encountered.
Otherwise, you can ask questions here.
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
​
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?
​
“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.
An accessible work written about this subject is Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
More about this subject can be found at the wiki/FAQ pages here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/wiki/faq
Specifically, numbers 12, 32, and 34.
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:
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.
Along with everything listed here, your friends may be inclined to listen to Bart Ehrman. He's an atheist New Testament scholar who has written and spoken quite a bit against Jesus mythicism. Be aware that as an atheist he has many claims about both the historicity of certain parts of the bible and the figure of Christ himself that I find problematic, but he does a good job refuting the idea that Jesus never existed period. If you or your friends enjoy reading, his book Did Jesus Exist? is a good presentation a secular case for the historical figure of Jesus. He has also been on the radio show/podcast Unbelievable?
If you like podcasts, then Unbelievable? has a ton of great episodes debating this issue if you search through the archives. (And, might I add, if you're doing any kind of apologetics it's a great resource to listen to Christians having fantastic apologetics discourse with people from all kinds of belief systems.)
>is there any scientific evidence for Jesus' resurrection?
Yes. NT Wright lays this out well in The Resurrection of the Son of God
>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.
The overwhelming academic consensus is that there was a historical Jesus, the mythicist hypothesis (which is the main competitor) is really fringe (not that there aren't biblical scholars and peer-reviewed papers that support it, but they're treated kind of like climatologists who deny anthropogenic global warming).
Bart Ehrman (an extremely respected NT scholar who generally identifies as an agnostic) wrote a book for non-scholars on the topic, Did Jesus Exist?, but while I recommend Ehrman's work generally, I haven't read that particular book.
1) the historical consensus is that Jesus did, in fact, exist. Bart Ehrman, the world's leading atheistic Bible scholar, even wrote a book dedicated to explaining to other atheists that Jesus did in fact exist: https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443
2) So what if every religion thinks they're right and the others are wrong. the same is true of political ideologies. That's just how a debate works.
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.
I wouldn’t say that telling people to Just believe will not help them that much. There are a lot of philosophical and historical arguments that can get you to the fact that Christianity is true. But one of the worst ways to do it is just to ignore the questions and tell people to just have faith. People doing that is one of the number one reasons why people leave the faith. Also I would say that those books you recommended are good popular level apologetic books, but one of the foremost scholarly texts on this issue is NT Wrights book The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800626796/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_AG7BPWGNJ7A1GAJR421Y.
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
the historical and scholarly consensus is that Jesus did, in fact, exist.
Bart ehrman, the world's leading atheistic Bible scholar, wrote a book dedicated to explaining this to other atheists. https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443
> 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): "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" 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.
It's so strange that the same Bart Ehrman wrote a book called Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument <strong>for</strong> Jesus of Nazareth
He argued that the Historical Jesus (i.e. the man, not the religious claims) existed.
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
>I'm not changing the topic. I'm simply asking how six non-eyewitness writings talking about the beliefs of christians are evidence that Jesus actually existed?
Erhman explains this well in the article above and in his book Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
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.
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.
We have no known contemporary accounts outside of the Gospels. The Jewish historian Josephus talked about it. If you'd like to know more I suggest this book. Hopefully you'll find it to be a good informative read.
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.
Or if you prefer to watch short YouTube videos that use his book
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.