free The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ Epub AUTHOR Brant Pitre – Book, DOC or Kindle ePUB free

SUMMARY The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

Se for Jesus will show recent discoveries in New Testament scholarship as well as neglected evidence from ancient manuscripts and the early church fathers together have the potential to pull the rug out from under a century of skepticism toward the apostolic authorship and historical truth of the traditional Gospels. As someone who is no stranger to reading apologetic works like this one 1 I found this book interesting and worthwhile for several reasons although I must admit I am not as enthusiastic about some of his other books where his Catholic perspective is a bit stronger like his book on the whore of Babylon for example Even so this was a book that hit a certain sweet spot that makes a book enjoyable to read and that is a work that presents a thoughtful case for Christ based on the evidence that also takes seriously the Hebrew thought of the early Church of God Even if this author does not share that perspective it is worthwhile at least to note that he celebrates and presents that understanding in a way that is appealing to read and which is uite excellent to contrast with the approaches taken by other contemporary Christian apologists few of whom have a great interest in the perspective of the Hebrew scriptures on such matters as the Messiah and why it was that Jesus Christ was considered guilty of blasphemyThis book totals about 200 pages a pretty standard length for an easy to read volume of this type and contains a baker s dozen of chapters that deal with various matters about the historical and biblical case for Jesus Christ The author begins with a discussion of the uest for the historical Jesus and for the author s own personal uest for belief through the course of his education After that the author asks the uestion of whether the Gospels were anonymous finding no anonymous copies of the Gospels whatsoever but rather finding that the four Gospels of our scripture are uniformly given the titles that we have them or abbreviations thereof The author then turns his attention to the writings of various ante Nicene church fathers showing his Catholic perspective in an appealing form here while looking critically at the so called Lost Gospels The author then looks at the genre of the Gospels as biographies and discusses the dating of the Gospels as being before the destruction of the Temple It is at this point that the author shows his most interesting line of evidence by looking at Jesus messianic claims and their Hebrew context which can be found in all of the Gospels and not only John After this the author looks at the crucifixion resurrection and transfiguration presenting a solid book that is immensely enjoyable for a believer to readWhere this book excels the most is in exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of so much of the critical impulse of self professed scholars when it comes to examining the biblical record By looking at what the self professed Christian writers of the early centuries of Christianity said about texts which we can read for ourselves in translation today we can see that there was no widespread conspiracy against valid forms of Christianity but rather a strong Christian hostility to pseudonymous works and a high degree of concern for eyewitness testimony as well as high standards of historicity which one finds in the Gospels as a whole The author shows himself to be knowledgeable in matters of textual criticism to a high degree and it is inspirational that he managed to survive as a faithful person in the sort of environment that tends to cause so many others to lose their faith because of corrupt instruction by those who should know better but do not when it comes to God s word and its reliability For those who are at least somewhat sympathetic to an understanding of the Hebrew scriptures and their viewpoint as well as to a historical look at the church fathers of late antiuity this book is definitely a worthwhile and enjoyable read1 See for example

FREE READ ↠ EXCEEDBDF.CO.UK õ Brant Pitre

The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

Over the past hundred years scholars have attacked the historical truth of the Gospels and argued that they were originally anonymous and filled with contradictions In The Case for Jesus Brant Pitre taps into the wells of Christian scripture history and tradition to ask and answer a number of different uestions incl. When theologians talk about God and general perspectives on reality I find that you can often fully embrace the subject intellectually mainly because of St Augustin and St Thomas and also because the object of the investigation is our life our reality our human world as it can be experienced today just like it was experienced 2000 years ago When it comes to arguments about the historic Jesus of Nazareth as the person who is described in the gospels I feel a little cautious I am catholic and I find it a fascinating subject but I m convinced that short of some earth shattering archeological discovery or the invention of time travel which is not to be dismissed we will never be able to get to a satisfying level of historic truth when it comes to the life of JesusThe point is like Joseph Ratzinger says that is probably not a useful line of inuiry I was taught that the Bible is a polysemic book in other words its content has different layers of meaning that overlap and intertwine with each other There is some literal truth historic truth but mainly it s spiritual and theological truth Reading the scriptures as if they were all only literal historic truth is not something that one can do without either a avoiding rigorous thinking see Christian Evangelicals who deny pretty much 50% of scientific discoveries or b building a case on flimsy or non existing evidence like only a seasoned courtroom attorney would be able to doAnd that s what Pitre does in this book he builds a case He does it extremely well sometimes with very convincing explanations sometimes not so convincingly despite the scarcity of evidence Like many other religious scholars he is great as posing clear direct uestions So at this point one has to wonder why on Earth would someone etc etc To which the reader thinks Yeah exactly I m wondering exactly that because it doesn t make any sense at all But when the time for the answer comes it never properly hits the mark It s never a direct clear answer It tends to be an attorney answer that leads you to think something even though it s never utterly clear and direct One example is the uestion of why if Jesus was God as he said he was he would cry from the cross My God why hast Thou forsaken me Pitre s explanation draws from his deep and serious research but I didn t find it very convincing In the first part of the book Pitre discusses the history of the four gospels and he aims to show that they are fairly accurate biographies It s always been believed John Matthew were written by eyewitnesses while Mark and Luke by friends of friends By the beginning of 20th century a new theory was widely embraced that the 4 gospels were originally anonymous Still today many scholars believe we do not know who wrote them Pitre doesn t agree with that He builds a very strong case against the anonymity of the gospels1 No anonymous manuscript was ever found 2 Almost all of the most ancient manuscripts and fragments have the same titles saying The gospel according to Matthew Mark Luke or John 3 Impossible that a series of 4 books would circulate for about a century around the Roman Empire and then all of a sudden have titles consistent with their content He then tackles the subject of Who wrote the gospels MATTHEWHe was an eyewitness Most ancient one or first gospel He was a tax collector called by Jesus to be one of the 12 apostles Important he was the only one who was literate Some scholars say it s impossible the actual apostles would have written the gospels because they were illiterate fishermen Peter and John were illiterate But it s very likely that Matthew was not illiterate as a tax collector Most common objection to the fact that Mathew gospel was written by the apostle Matthew is that he used Mark s as a source Mark was not eyewitness but he was friend with Peter So Pitre says it s possible that apostle Matthew used Mark s as source for those events that Matthew did not witness Not all apostles were witness to everything Joseph Ratzinger says Dio e il mondo 2000 that most scholars today agree that this is not true Matthew s gospel was written around the end of the 1st century Initially there were only Jesus s sayings memorized and transmitted verbally MARKNo eyewitness Friend of Peter We know something about Mark from the Letters of Paul He traveled with Barnabus and Paul and he was with Peter when Peter was in Rome Mark had a fight with Paul and they separated at some point LUKE No eyewitness He was a doctor His prologue says why he is writing and that he is not an eyewitness Letters of Paul refer to him many times A gentile not a Jew Stayed with Paul while Paul was a prisoner Mark and Luke knew each other Acts of apostles are also probably written by Luke because dedicated to the same mysterious Theofilus JOHN The disciple whom Jesus lovedControversial whether he was eyewitness apostle or not Benedict XVI says that he was the actual apostle In the beginning the writer John declares that he was the actual apostle Pitre believes he was eyewitness One of the 3 disciples closest to Jesus John son of Zebede He was a fisherman but he might have written the gospel at the end of his life and he would have studied after Jesus s death and would have had at least 40 years before putting pen to paper Or he could have dictated to a secretary like Paul dictated some of his letters to secretariesAlso most scholars think that only John mentions the fact that Jesus called himself divine while Pitre is convinced that other evangelists present the divinity of Jesus in subtle ways In the second part of the book this is what Pitre focuses on the divinity of Jesus and how Jesus actually said that he was God although in a way that a Jewish person in his time would have understood while today we would not necessarily find it immediately clearOverall a good scholarly book that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in this topic

Brant Pitre õ 1 FREE DOWNLOAD

Uding If we don't know who wrote the Gospels how can we trust them How are the four Gospels different from other gospels such as the lost gospel of and the Gospel of Thomas How can the four Gospels be historically true when there are differences between them How much faith should be put into these writings As The Ca. This was the Lighthouse Talks Augustine Institute CD version of his book as he lectured to a live audience uite good I plan to get the actual book for a greater understanding of his Case for Jesus


10 thoughts on “The Case for Jesus The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ

  1. says:

    When theologians talk about God and general perspectives on reality I find that you can often fully embrace the subject intellectually mainly because of St Augustin and St Thomas and also because the object of the investigation is our life our reality our human world as it can be experienced today just like it was experienced 2000 years ago When it comes to arguments about the historic Jesus of Nazareth as the person who is descri

  2. says:

    A very good read as the author relates his own story regarding skepticism and becoming skeptical about it and what others were teaching him So he goes back to some of the basics as to what we know Even if you are familiar

  3. says:

    About ten years ago while waiting at the Pittsburgh Airport I met a young biblical scholar named Dr Brant Pitre We were both heading to the same biblical conference so we rode together and in the car we had a lively discussion about biblical interpretation especially the reliability of the GospelsDr Pitre shared how annoyed he was by the oft used comparison between the transmission of the story of Jesus and the

  4. says:

    Briant Pitre begins “A Case for Jesus” by getting right to the point “This book is about one big uestion Did Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God?” He then expressed his shock when in college he learned that that the gospels were written anonymously the actual authors are unknown Apparently he continued through his s

  5. says:

    This was the Lighthouse Talks Augustine Institute CD version of his book as he lectured to a live audience uite good I plan to get the actual book for a greater understanding of his “Case for Jesus “

  6. says:

    NOTE I think this book listing was entered into the system before publication and the subtitle has been changed since thenAbout ten years ago while waiting at the Pittsburgh Airport I met a young biblical scholar named Dr Brant Pitr

  7. says:

    As someone who is no stranger to reading apologetic works like this one 1 I found this book interesting and worthwhile for several reasons although I must admit I am not as enthusiastic about some of his other books where his Catholic perspective is a bit stronger like his book on the whore of Babylon for example  Even s

  8. says:

    A good book which gave me a great moments of happiness Of course to know about Jesus is always a happy moment The skeptical attitude towards Jesus was there from his earthly life onward I know it will continue but for those who seek

  9. says:

    5 stars I really loved this The listening experience was great but I definitely want to reread this Review to come

  10. says:

    There is a big part of the topic of apologetics that doesn’t apply to me Maybe I am dimwitted gullible and sh