What is Reddit's opinion of The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Contrary to what many people think, many Christians do read books that present an opposing view. I have Ehrman's books in my library and I also have books that refute Ehrman's points.

If you are new to Christianity, or beginning to dig deeper into your faith, I would recommend reading these books before reading Ehrman:

The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird

The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre.

Counting to God by former atheist Douglas Ell.

Depending on context, the term “faith” can be knowledge, assent or confidence. It also can be a state (as in being in a right relationship to God through Christ.)

> How do you trust the bible?

I have faith (confidence) in what the bible teaches. What that means is, a discerning bible reader must discern between what’s in the bible and what the bible teaches.

1. The term “infallible” carries some denominational baggage but the majority of them assert that the bible is inspired. We totally understand that the authors were human, sinners and men of human capacity. We understand they weren’t given a heavenly vocabulary or celestial grammar and yes it’s pretty clear that inspiration isn’t a mechanical dictation. Reasonably their writings in many ways bear the marks of their human authorship.

2. As you pointed out, the Bible is a compilation; a collection of many books much like an encyclopedia set. The books aren’t arranged chronologically but grouped accordingly to their genre.

3. One of the things I find really compelling about the book is that it does not gloss over human tragedy and failings. If an ancient writer wanted to fabricate a story to convince a reader, or make a “bible hero” seem holy, surely they would’ve glossed over extremely embarrassing accounts displaying very human attributes and blatant failures. The bible can be dirty, gritty, and bloody and at the same time poetic and inspiring. The bible is not: a child’s book, a self-help book, a moral guideline nor is it a science textbook. It’s primary purpose is the revelation of God to man. This is why it’s imperative when reading the bible to not mistake what’s in the bible for what the bible teaches.

> Not to mention, do most Christians even consider how the bible came to be? And not prophets or disciples, just men. And they decided which Books got put in, and which ones were left out.

4. You realize that every school textbook you ever had in school was written by men? Every science article and peer reviewed research was written by men. People put a great deal of faith in them.

5. Lot’s of people don’t consider how the bible came to be. For instance, it’s historically inaccurate to assume that, “At some point a group of men just got together and decided which books where included and which books were left out.”

First, we know the books that make up the Old Testament (or Hebrew bible canon) was somewhat fixed hundreds of years prior to Jesus’ birth.

Based on findings at Qumran, we know Jewish disciples kept codices and/or “logia” of their rabbi’s sayings, so it’s not unreasonable to believe the sayings of Jesus (think bullet-point memoirs or codices) were created by literate disciples/eyewitnesses and were being circulated to new converts well within Jesus’ lifetime. It would be unusual if some of Jesus’ disciples didn’t keep notes/codices to record their rabbi’s sayings & teachings to aid in the process of transmission through memorization. There is strong probability that collections of testimonies [think proof texts] were current in the early church. The notes were not proto-Gospels but eventually the contents surely made it into the written synoptic Gospels that we have now. In the early Church there were no dispute over authenticity of these memoirs/documents. We know from outside historical sources that the “memoirs of the apostles” were circulating, collected and read in the early Christian home churches.

We know Paul’s letters were circulating in collected forms well within the 1st century. We know Peter recognized the writings of the Apostle Paul as Scripture. He cited Paul's letters (a major part of the NT canon), which some were twisting "as they do the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15,16) implying there were already somewhat of a proto canon. Pre-Pauline creeds: there are a series of texts in Paul's letters (Romans 1:2-5, 16:25-27, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, 15:3-7, Philippians 2:6-11) which don't appear to be written by Paul. It appears that Paul is quoting creeds written by earlier Christians. Pre-Pauline Creeds, found in Paul's letters, contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E.

We know of a reference to a “book” and “parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13, which may specifically designate a notebook or perhaps a collection.

We know by the end of the second century all but seven books (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation) were recognized as apostolic, and by the end of the fourth century all twenty-seven books in our present canon were recognized by all the churches of the West. After the Damasine Council of Rome in A.D. 332 and the third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 the question of the Canon was closed in the West. By the year 500 the whole Greek-speaking church had also accepted all the books in our present New Testament.

6. So, it’s a gross historical inaccuracy to just argue that some men got together and made a list of bible books. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon over time in the sense that the: Judaic fathers, first Jewish converts to Christianity, early Christian home churches, early synods and councils each gathered, verified, approved and listed the Christian bible canon.

> So what was the criteria, how did these men I know nothing about decide which books were true and which were false?

7. Scholars and historians have written books and series of books on this topic so it’s virtually impossible to answer this in an online comment thread. Again, it’s historically inaccurate and somewhat naive to just assume that some men got together hundreds of years after the fact and made a list of bible books.

I recommend starting with The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird.

> So how am I supposed to believe in the Christian God when I can't even trust His word?

8. The bible reader must distinguish between what’s in the Bible and what the Bible teaches. The Bible was inspired by God, but written by people. The Holy Spirit did not give the Biblical writers a heavenly vocabulary, a celestial grammar, or divine attributes. Through men of human capacities the Holy Spirit spoke divine truth. Since inspiration was not a mechanical dictation, the Scriptures in many ways bear the marks of their human authorship.

Sorry I’m late for the party but this is a great question. It seems you already understand that the bible is actually a compilation of books, much like an encyclopedia set, and as such the NT is also a compilation comprised of: Gospels, church history, epistles (or letters) and an apocalyptic book (Revelation).

It’s not unreasonable to believe that written forms of Jesus’ teachings were being transmitted among his followers even during his earthly ministry.

Notes/codices: Archeological findings at Qumran provide evidence that it was the norm for Jewish rabbi/pupil relationships of the era to write and keep notes aka codices of their rabbi’s sayings. It would be unusual if some of Jesus’ disciples didn’t keep notes/codices to record their rabbi’s sayings & teachings to aid in the process of transmission through memorization. There is strong probability that collections of testimonies [proof texts] were current in the early church. (I’m not asserting these codices were proto-Gospels but eventually the contents surely made it into the written synoptic Gospels that we have now.)

Testimonies/Logia: it is thought that a “logia” of the sayings of Jesus (think bullet-point memoirs or codices) created by literate disciples/eyewitnesses were most likely written and circulated to new converts well within Jesus’ lifetime.

Many scholars believe that Paul’s letters (epistles) were the first New Testament documents saved and read by the early home churches.

We know Paul’s letters were circulating in collected forms well within the 1st century. We know Peter recognized the writings of the Apostle Paul as Scripture. He cited Paul's letters (a major part of the NT canon), which some were twisting "as they do the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15,16) implying there were already somewhat of a proto canon.

Pre-Pauline creeds: there are a series of texts in Paul's letters (Romans 1:2-5, 16:25-27, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, 15:3-7, Philippians 2:6-11) which don't appear to be written by Paul. It appears that Paul is quoting creeds written by earlier Christians. Pre-Pauline Creeds found in Paul's letters, contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E.

We know of a reference to a “book” and “parchments” in 2 Tim 4:13, which may specifically designate a notebook or perhaps a collection.

We know from outside historical sources that the “memoirs of the apostles” were circulating, collected and read in the early Christian home churches as Justin Martyr (d. 160 CE) mentions passing an early Christian worship service where the Gospels were read as the source for scriptural exhortation. (1 Apol. 67-3.)

By the end of the second century all but seven books (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation) were recognized as apostolic, and by the end of the fourth century all twenty-seven books in our present canon were recognized by all the churches of the West. After the Damasine Council of Rome in A.D. 332 and the third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 the question of the Canon was closed in the West. By the year 500 the whole Greek-speaking church had also accepted all the books in our present New Testament.

So you see that the Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon in the sense that early Jewish converts, early Christians of the first home churches and the early synods/councils each gathered, listed and approved a Christian bible canon. In other words, there were no immediate canons of the New Testament because in the early Church there was no dispute over authenticity of these memoirs/documents.

I highly recommend reading The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird.

Some ask for signs and others search for wisdom but we preach Christ crucified, to some a stumbling block and to others foolishness.

What that means is – our sign is Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected to redeem the world. This is what Jesus taught when he said, "no sign shall be given except the sign of the prophet Jonah.". The sign of Jonah is that the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

It's entirely human to cry out to God "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief. The primary purpose of the bible is the revelation of God to man, and our sign is outlined in the New Testament.

If you have doubts about the New Testament, then perhaps you'd be comforted by becoming more informed about the reliability of the New Testament? Buy yourself an early Christmas present and get the book The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael Bird. Bird navigates research as he builds an informed case for how the early Christ followers wrote and spread the story of Jesus.

Here's an interview with Bird talking about the book.