What is Reddit's opinion of
The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
28 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
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.
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.
Honestly, not-fornicating is a matter of prudence and natural law. There's no reason why a person needs divine revelation to realize that fornication is bad. It leads to STDs, heartbreak & emotional anguish, and can lead to children being conceived out of wedlock. We know that from experience, not because the angels told us.
IDK man, what if you do a Pascal Wager's and pragmatic conversion?
Because for Catholics in a situation like yours, it's easy to say "well, just find a devout Catholic woman and she'll have your same beliefs about the sanctity of marriage, human sexuality, and human life." But for you, it's like, if you find a Catholic who agrees with you on the sanctity of marriage, human sexuality, and human life stuff, then she would likely not be able to accept your inability to affirm the Creed.
Have you read books like "Mere Christianity" or books about the philosophical proofs for God's existence? (Those proofs were collected by Aquinas, but there's an Ed Feser book that puts them in modern English & explains them.) From those two, maybe try "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre.
Have you ever read Brant Pitre's book?: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
Because the idea that somehow the gospel writers aren't who they are actually attributed to is false. And that is where biblical scholarship is going and Brant shows you why that is the case. As for how these works bear out across differing writers, I think you are leading with your assumption--an assumption that necessarily thins the number of verifiable writers who were also witnesses, or were informed first hand by those witnesses. From what I can tell that seems like motivated reasoning. Regardless, that won't change that the people recorded did exist, did claim to see what was recorded, and did die for their claims. That verifies Josephus's account, regardless of how you want to attempt to unsettle other aspects of the accounts.
Try checking out "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre.
In short, there's basically no reason to think that Jesus DIDN'T exist. As far as ancient figures go, we have really good reasons to believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived and began a movement. There's more evidence for Christ's existence than for Plato's.
I just think you're asking for something that isn't really likely to exist (were a secular source to be convinced of the resurrection, wouldn't they become Christian, making that a Christian source?), and that you're operating under the false assumption that all things are "provable" or "disprovable". That's just not the case, especially in history. Fr. Sparky already recommended some scholarship. Most arguments approach it from a few angles:
1) four individual documents are actually pretty good historical evidence
2) everybody agrees that the tomb was empty
3) the people in a position to know the truth died for it
I also don't really see where you're getting this idea that I'm super faithful or something, as though I don't struggle with this too.
I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. To make amends, I'll also play the good vending machine by linking Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus. I've heard it's quite good, but haven't read it myself. Have heard him talk a bit about it though.
" after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." This was written very specifically so that the very early Christian's could go to those who were witnesses and verify the story. Too many separate accounts to be denied. A good book that I am going through now is the case for Jesus
I'm not sure what causes you to love my username, it's just initials and a last name, but I'm curious what you took it to mean!
Strobel's The Case for Christ is good, but it's pretty simple.
For a better look at the Gospels and how Jesus is shown to be divine in them, I would recommend Dr. Brant Pitre's new book The Case for Jesus. I think it'd be a good next step for these questions.
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.
>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.
At least from the perspective of the more ancient forms of Christianity there is no conflict between faith and science, especially given that the bible does not speak to scientific truths. Quite ironically you will find that the older forms of Christianity are far more open to the dictates of science.
For a deeper understanding of this, see the following video. The other videos by Aquinas 101 are also worth checking out.
The Scientific Method: Common Objections to Faith https://youtu.be/JAkj5P6IHUQ
Additionally, you may want to check out the following book by 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_EQRKKQWCYM1DBY2RCYD5
In the following video he echoes one of his counter arguments to the claim (as well as in the book) that the Gospels were originally anonymous.
Were the Gospels Really Anonymous? https://youtu.be/dwGC3hoowAQ
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
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.
"The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
I'm genuinely curious about the amount of effort you've put throughout the entire span of your life into investigating the 'information' you're churning out here...
Believe it or not there are actually individuals like myself out there who have in fact researched well beyond what it's clear your limited knowledge of the topic must be.
Here is just a singular example of a scholarly prooftext that refutes your fairly weak claim that Christ and Judas and the bible itself have little to no credibility: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
Do I think you will read the text? I'm not holding my breath. Individuals who have fixed opinions are far too narrow minded and pridefully confident in their own knowledge (that came from where? their own testimony?) to actually press in to research truth that counters their belief system.
Good luck nonetheless, I think if you gave it a chance you'd be surprised at what you might find.
There is actually a lot to unpack to sufficiently make the case for Christ’s divinity, which I do believe is intentional. Besides, if Christ is not Lord, he is either a lunatic or a liar, as C.S. Lewis rightfully concludes in Mere Christianity (a former atheist).
Realize, the very “blasphemy” that Jesus was found guilty of, by the Jewish high priest of the time, was equating his own authority with that of God’s (punishable by crucifixion). He also eludes to a prophecy of Daniel at the same time, which is fascinating as well.
Christ also expressed his equality with God when forgiving the sins of the paralytic, something only God could do. He even refers to his own divinity when walking on the water, based on not only what Christ was doing, but what he actually said during this event… https://youtu.be/P1uPqvaAck0
Anyway, Christ being a prophet is one thing, but implying he was divine, truly the messiah, is not something he could have done without certain reservations. He had to be subtle about it hence him frequently telling those who either experienced or witnessed certain miracles of his, not to tell anyone. If Christ would have gone around claiming to everyone “I am God” there would have been numerous witnesses of this “blasphemy” and Christ’s earthly ministry would have been over before it started.
This subtlety of him revealing his divinity was not only calculated, but at the same time it forces believers (then and now) to delve much more deeply into seeking and finding how all the dots connect to one another.
If you want delve deeper consider checking out Dr Brant Pitre’s book, “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_PR30PBNHPAAMEB75SHX0
He also has numerous YouTube videos which are also excellent.
Im sure you’ll get some great suggestions by others but one book you may want to check out is by 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. He also goes into this in his book above, among other aspects.
Were the Gospels Really Anonymous https://youtu.be/dwGC3hoowAQ
I am not bible scholar, so I will link a book instead so I make sure I don´t spread misinformation because almost everything you said is wrong but I don´t know enough to prove it but try reading this to challenge your view:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
That been said I will address some points:
> Simply, nobody knew how to write.
What do you mean by this? Are you implying that ancient people were stupid because that is nonsense, even when we speak about Christian followers, many were very well educated and knew perfectly well how to write, this is statement is factually incorrect and I can´t believe you are actually using it as an argument.
>I was a catholic for many years, and my parents are very much so. Ive read the bible at least twice, front to back. Did the whole CDC bullshit, communion, confirmation, the works.
This means nothing, most Catholics don´t know their faith and reading the bible just like reading anything is useless without understanding their purpose, context, literary genre and culture which you clearly don´t.
>The bible is a collection of books written by often anonymous authors, especially the gospels.
This means nothing, the authors don´t matter, what matters is that the writings are legit and even atheist scholars agree that they are, plus while there is no consensus, we have a lot of reasons to believe that we do know who wrote them (read the book I linked).
> idk what exactly you mean by very solid intellectual foundation
Read the writings of the Church fathers if you think you are smart and let´s see if you can prove me that that Christianity (Catholicism more specifically) has no solid intellectual foundation. Or try reading some of the Church doctors for that matter if you think you know a lot and are smart enough. I can link you some of their works if you want.
>Also, why are biblical figures depicted as white Europeans? Why wasn't slavery forbidden in the new testament?
Biblical figures have been depicted in many cultural ways because the church is universal, There are pictures of Asian Jesus in Japan and Korea for example, and Black Jesus in Africa, this proves nothing and is just an irrational nitpick and a useless argument. Also, What is your point with slavery? That is irrelevant to the veracity of the bible.
> the faith is splintered into thousands of denominations.
There are only 2 Churches that can be traced back to Jesus, the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, the protestant bullshit is irrelevant to me because they aren´t the real church of Christ (if you want to debate me go ahead) and both Churches are consistent in their theology and have a very solid foundation for their faith (read Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine or any other Church doctor or father if you think you are smart) The protestant reformation is when all the thousand denominations started to appear 1500 years after Christianity started but non of then has any ground to stand on and are only popular because they are simplify versions of "Christianity for everyone ". In fact, your very own argument can be used to prove why Catholicism is the only Church of Christ.
> I can go on, but you get the point.
I really don´t, your arguments are irrelevant against the veracity of the New Testament and even if your claims were true (they are not) you really don´t prove anything.
To end, maybe you can read this reddit thread to challenge yourself. This are probably better answers than mine when it comes to the Gospels:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/68q7vo/are_the_gospels_historically_accurate_why/
And I remind you of the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
Questioning is a normal part of life and especially so for something so counter to our current culture as the Catholic faith. With prayer and homework, you will be more confident in your faith.
1.) This is a great question. The life of Jesus and the early Church as recorded in the Gospels and the New Testament are the sources of our faith. So, how do we know those are true? The short answer is that those people who would've known whether it was true died for it and early Church Fathers who knew those people affirmed that the Gospels were written by or according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The long answer is in a book called "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre.
2.) There are various degrees of "bad things" or suffering that we experience. First, it's important to note that suffering entered the world by original sin. God does not cause suffering but he permits it. Some suffering helps us to avoid even greater suffering (e.g., the pain of a significant other breaking up with you when they were not the right person for you). But there are types of suffering that are much more difficult to comprehend like children with leukemia. In those cases, it is wise to remember who is in control. God is all-knowing and all-loving. So, on one hand we can rest assured that God has a plan. On the other, we can look at the life of Jesus who is not just a good person, he is perfect. God uses suffering to the advantage of the Kingdom.
3.) First of all, God is not bound by the Ten Commandments. Killing without authority to do so is called murder. God is the creator of literally everything and so very much has authority to take life. As for other passages that are hard to deal with, I recommend Dark Passages of the Bible: Engaging Scripture with Benedict XVI & Thomas Aquinas
Lastly, go to /r/Catholicism. There are some very bright people over there.
| SECTION | CONTENT |
|---|---|
| Title | The Case for Jesus Course Introduction: Is Jesus Divine in the Synoptic Gospels? (Part 2 of 5) |
| Description | In part 2 of 5 of Dr. Brant Pitre's introductory videos to his forthcoming set on the Case for Jesus where he engages skeptical approaches to the Gospels (e.g., by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others), he discusses two miracles that, when read in context, help answer the question - is Jesus Divine?: First, Dr. Pitre discusses the famous stilling of the storm in the synoptic Gospels (in this instance, in Mark's account). This miracle of Jesus stilling the storm elicits from the Apostles to ask about J... |
| Length | 0:20:21 |
| SECTION | CONTENT |
|---|---|
| Title | The Case For Jesus |
| Description | A presentation given be Brant Pitre as part of the Newman Lecture Series at Our Lady of Wisdom Church and Catholic Student Center on the campus of the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Buy his book The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483 |
| Length | 1:12:38 |
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
Thanks man I appreciate it. If you're looking to get one book, I highly recommend Brant Pitre's book "The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ". Strange Notions also has a list that includes a number of good books on the subject of Jesus (scroll down till you hit the "Jesus" section). The founder of the site, Brandon Vogt, is a well known Catholic personality who loves books. So you can trust the titles listed over there to be good.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483
I am not entirely sure of the prophecy can you give some context?
Free will is an integral part of the Christian for He made us in His image and likeness. God has given us this beautiful gift - that we may love. Because we are created in and by Love Itself - such a gift can never be taken back. By God's grace, we can become what Jesus Christ was.
My suggestion is to read a little bit of Christian history (I will definitely receive some flak for what I write here). There are only 3 churches that claim apostolic succession (lineage via the bishops to the apostles them - either the 12 or the 70 or other apostles). They are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church. All other churches and confessions were created way, way after. If you need some help on this kindly PM me.
Don't we all? :) There's a great amount of biblical and historical evidence that Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and did claim to be divine. I highly recommend http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20case%20for%20jesus&qid=1462615674&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
A wonderfully written article on Genesis is http://www.pravmir.com/creation-in-genesis/
I hope this helps :) Again, feel free to ask around and/or you can always PM me if you have any questions my friend :)
Read this instead it's an extremely fascinating and brilliant read: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454874022&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=bradd+pitre
> I am trying to convince myself that the Bible, and mostly, the NT, is not the true word of God.
I’ve never seen this approach here. Very interesting.
> Why would a group of people follow Jesus and write about all this stuff if there is no truth behind it?
Great question but it’s loaded. The “load” implies they followed Jesus and wrote about him so there must be some truth behind it. There’s actually nothing wrong with a loaded question to stimulate genuine discussion, and if that results in a supported argument showing a degree of probability, then you got something viable to draw a conclusion.
This reminds of the Criterion of Embarrassment. The principle is if something in early Christian writings is embarrassing to the writer then that can add a degree of confidence that what’s written may genuine and honest. Take the crucifixion for example: the absolute last thing any devout Jew of the early first century would expect is the Messiah would be defeated by their Roman oppressors to be denigrated and humiliated on a cross like a common criminal. The crucifixion would be strong evidence that Jesus failed to deliver the Jews from Roman oppression and prove that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Even so, the Gospel authors write about the crucifixion as if it were “good news”. Seems irrational so why would they do that? A skeptic could say, “Well they also write that Jesus resurrected.” Sure, but rising from the dead is new covenant theology – not the old covenant Messiah understandings. To further erode the Gospel author’s credibility they document that women discovered the empty tomb. If the authors wanted to appear valid then they would have had fabricated men into this role. Even documenting women as leaders in the early Christian Church would be a huge mistake if they wanted to fake some validity to their movement.
Another example would be the names of the Gospels. If you wanted to give your movement authority then why pick two non-eyewitnesses? Why pick Mark and Luke who never really knew Jesus? To add authority to a fake gospel you would want the author to be Peter, Andrew of even Jesus himself. Yet here we are: not only the earliest and best manuscripts, but all of the ancient manuscripts - without exception, in every language – attribute the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence – and therefore no actual historical evidence – to support the claim that "originally" the Gospels had no titles.” – The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre
Of course the Criterion of Embarrassment can't tell us very much in a vacuum, but if you combine it with other historical criteria, you can start to make a good argument for an event's historicity. Not saying this is a mic drop but: all four Gospels, Paul letters, and late first century Jewish-non-Christian and other outside historical resources all collaborate with in as much as they believe a historical person named Jesus was born, baptized, taught disciples and was killed by the local authorities.
Not all scholarship, and the "anonymous gospels" theory has no basis in reality. Brant Pitre counters such "scholarship" quite well in the poorly named The Case for Jesus (poorly named because it's trading on Strobel's books, which are shit).
Popular alternatives to The Case for Jesus: The Bib...
God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships
