Some really great info here, though I didn't agree with some of the points in how they related to relative truth - a term never used, but certainly daSome really great info here, though I didn't agree with some of the points in how they related to relative truth - a term never used, but certainly danced around. For the most part, Oliver does a first-rate job explaining some basics about Islam and makes some really interesting points that are worth consideration (i.e. where are the 5 pillars in the Qur'an?). I'd recommend this very secular approach to anyone who has interest in learning about the Qur'an. It's been over 20 years since I've read the Qur'an, so it was insightful to have this synopsis....more
This book is written in a collaboration/conversation/study guide. I wasn't really excited about it when I started it, but as we went through, both autThis book is written in a collaboration/conversation/study guide. I wasn't really excited about it when I started it, but as we went through, both authors shared a lot of insights - as well as reasons for them - as well as appropriate disclaimers. I appreciated all of these things. I think this one is worth reading a second time. It's pretty short and very easy, but really gives a completely different outlook on some BM accounts....more
Some really great, simple counsel for anyone. I particularly liked the write-up on being humble. I didn't know hardly any of what Hinckley shared abouSome really great, simple counsel for anyone. I particularly liked the write-up on being humble. I didn't know hardly any of what Hinckley shared about Florence Nightingale, but I am interested in learning a lot more about her. I wasn't aware that Hinckley lost his mother when he was a child. He shared a few really poignant stories that I think will stick with me....more
First (and admittedly fairly irrelevant), HALLELUJAH for a title that has correct grammar! This book goes over several stories which have been coveredFirst (and admittedly fairly irrelevant), HALLELUJAH for a title that has correct grammar! This book goes over several stories which have been covered almost, if not verbatim from several past years' of Conference addresses, but they are all worth revisiting. I really enjoyed this book, and there were lots and lots of takeaways, which can come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with President Nelson's life. There are some seriously profound moments all throughout the book, and I'd say it's worth rereading several times for the important reminders about living your life....more
I really liked Jill's mature response to all that happened in her life. I think she has a really healthy approach. I appreciated that she didn't toss I really liked Jill's mature response to all that happened in her life. I think she has a really healthy approach. I appreciated that she didn't toss out all her Christian values, just because some of those values and tenets were used to manipulate and control her. I never saw any episodes (I'm not a TV person), and I only had the vaguest recollections of Josh's arrest and incarceration, so this was all pretty unfamiliar to me. I thought she did a great job in writing the memoir, and I especially liked her disclaimer at the end, stating this book wasn't a reconciliation tool for her or something to indict her family with (my rewording), but that she would continue to work on those relationship privately. I loved that she was able to evaluate things - and especially people - for the good as well as the bad and have several positive takeaways.
I was really unhappy with the editor. There were way too many grammatical errors: i.e. "I" used as an object pronoun instead of subject pronoun - as in "...how it affected (insert name) and I" and "nauseous" used instead of "nauseated". I don't expect Jill to know the difference, but where is the EDITOR?
Anyway, other than that, it was an interesting coming-of-age story, and I wish her and her husband and growing family best....more
Really cute mini-book filled with touching stories behind some of our Christmas music. It was really interesting and beautifully written - a great ChrReally cute mini-book filled with touching stories behind some of our Christmas music. It was really interesting and beautifully written - a great Christmas gift for any music lover!...more
**spoiler alert** I checked this out at random. It was available for audiobook immediately, and I'd run out of books. More than "Walking the Bible", i**spoiler alert** I checked this out at random. It was available for audiobook immediately, and I'd run out of books. More than "Walking the Bible", it's more "Walking the Torah". I am not sure why the first title was chosen, other than that it might appeal to a larger audience.
I enjoyed learning the really interesting points about how the geography of where Abraham resided, then Isaac, then Jacob, and how this demonstrated political growth/power of the nation the Lord was creating. I'm not as familiar with Old Testament geography as I am with New Testament geography - probably because there are more NT maps in my Bible. We know more about those areas (especially where, exactly they are) due to how much newer they are.
It was interesting that taking the Bible (or any religious relic) into the Temple Mount is forbidden. I'd suppose that anyone who wanted to preach the Bible could do so without actually holding in hand, but I can understand the dilemma what with all the killing over religious differences. It was something to think about, though, that if Abraham wanted to enter, he couldn't bring in his own story in with him. Oh, the irony.
I loved the point Feiler makes about the Akedah - how looking at it through different points of view continues to illustrate Isaac's binding to Abraham, Abraham's to God, and the perspective of each person involved. Also, I appreciated that Feiler points out the perspective that the symbolism of the Akedah points towards the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I have always believed so and am astonished to find that other Christians don't. It seems to obvious to be overlooked. Though Feiler is a Jew, I appreciated his including that in there regardless.
It was odd to me that Feiler sites the Akedah as the first "test" of the Bible. I'd have cited the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden as the first test, though I can understand why Feiler and/or others might not agree. I can see it argued as a different vein, but I certainly see it as the first big test of the Bible.
Feiler's recounting of the story of Joseph and his brothers really bothered me, because it completely overlooks what is one of the most important points of the story - the repentance of Joseph's brothers and his forgiveness of them. I wish that had been brought out more in the retelling of the story - not only for its importance but its beauty.
The retelling of the plagues and how they undermined the Egyptian gods by showing power of what their imagined gods were was a completely new concept for me. I also thought it was interesting to think of it as the world's first "top 10 list". I'd certainly never thought of it that way before. I was so intrigued about the plagues being a response to Egyptian gods, that I read up on that separately here: https://www.stat.rice.edu/~dobelman/D... Very interesting.
Now to a couple mistranslations of which I was either not aware or didn't remember from past classes on Bible history. Feiler points out that "Red Sea" is from the Hebrew, "Yam Suph", and a mistranslation of what should have been "Sea of Reeds" i.e. Reed Sea - not Red Sea. Likewise with the mistranslation from "shine" or "radiant" and "horn" It was interesting to see the art refernce to Moses and his horns and have the mistranslation cited to Jerome's Vulgate - an early Latin translation of the Bible.
It was interesting to me also that in exploring the possible geography of where the Israelites were in the desert 40 years, then40 years is what it would have taken on a more or less direct path. However, the Bible is explicit that the Israelites "wandered". Wandered is anything but a direct path, and as is touched on many times - even in this recounting, it's because they weren't ready for The Promised Land - not necessarily because the geographical distance from Egypt to The Promised Land was a 40 years' walk. Joshua 14 and Numbers 14 speak of this. Num 14:33 is explicit about the wandering and why. Distance is pretty irrelevant here.
Another thing that really surprised me was the recounting of Moses striking the water from the rock, and that because he "didn't trust God and affirm God's sanctity," Moses didn't go into the Promised Land. Though Feiler reads the text here directly from Numbers (though the audiobook doesn't cite which translation), I have always found v.10 (not cited) as critical here. Moses says, "Must we fetch you water out of this rock? " as if it were his and Aaron's power instead of the Lord's power. They took the credit. It was interesting to go back and read that the chapter does read just as Feiler says. Without looking at the entire context, it can indeed appear so though the Lord was offended solely that Moses struck the rock to draw water instead of talking to it. The Biblical and Qu'ranic differences about Moses that are mentioned throughout are also interesting - especially in how Moses' not reaching The Promised Land being entirely overlooked in the Qu'ran really upset Feiler.
Last of all, Jesus isn't anywhere - except mentioned as a symbolic reference when the Akedah is discussed. In a book about the Bible, it is the most gaping hole you could have. If the book's title were not misleading then you'd know you'd not find Jesus anywhere. Knowing that a Jew wrote it from a Jewish perspective, and therefore would cover only the Torah gives a much more accurate idea of what to anticipate.
Overall, I really enjoyed the book. I liked Feiler's providing different religious perspectives and a lot of history behind the geography. I found all of the information really interesting. In many ways, what was left out was as interesting as what was included.
At the end, Feiler says he has a website so that others can see what he and Abner saw, which I thought was very generous and helpful. ...more
**spoiler alert** It took me a really long time to slog through this. It is heavy reading and is meant to be gone through at a slow pace. There were s**spoiler alert** It took me a really long time to slog through this. It is heavy reading and is meant to be gone through at a slow pace. There were several reflective exercises that were useful and enlightening. There were also some really great quotes. Nevertheless, I struggled with a lot of the book.
Somehow, despite McConkie's assuring the reader over and over of his constant self-vigilance - lest he think himself superior, I couldn't escape the feeling self-importance just oozing out of it. It seemed to me that included with several profound items, there was an awful lot of dressed up drivel. McConkie has allowed for responses like mine by noting that any good/bad we see in others (presumably including him and the content of this book) is solely a projection of ourselves. The response to my feeling is already handled by the book's premise (the identical position taken up in Who Moved My Cheese?, I might add) is that it can only mean I'm not prepared to be as enlightened as I should be. Therefore, I will be handled patiently with kid gloves until I can reach the heights of the sixth person - and it doesn't bother me to be assessed like that. He certainly could be right. And I learned a lot, regardless of how off-putting much of the writing was.
While I see a lot of value in the claim that much of what we loathe in others is actually what our own shortcomings are (also noted by Philip Roth in The Anatomy Lesson), I don't buy that it necessarily accounts for 100% of admiration and disdain we feel towards others.
Lastly, my biggest struggle is his insistence that every religious tradition has truth and goodness to offer. While I agree that many, maybe even most do, I am not prepared to make or accept blanket statements that all religious traditions offer some goodness/truth. For example, I have to question where that applies in a devil-worship tradition.
I liked that McConkie argues truth in perspective - meaning what a person's perspective or experience is feels true to them. What I don't buy is that because an experience feels true, it therefore is true. It seemed to me like there was way too much trying to marry together everything McConkie liked about the different faiths he's explored, and it immediately put me in mind of Paul's words to the Thessalonians when they tried to add Jehovah to the pantheon.
I admit, I was really put off by the nonprofit "School of Wisdom" (mentioned in the About the Author write-up). I agree with McConkie that meditation, stillness, and awareness of others and of the world around us are desperately needed skills that we'd all do well to improve upon, but the presentation was far too reminiscent of the art gallery scene in L.A. Story, and there were certainly times where my response to the exaggerated prose was the same as Steve Martin's audience was to him in that scene.
The end goes through a summary of the human race as a holistic thing - comprehensively to be saved or not - meaning each loss (of a person who might have received salvation?) is counted as a decrease in light for the entire human race, because as a community/species/creation, we are One. That was an interesting thought - along with all the capital letters freely disbursed throughout the writing, which I didn't love - not as a Christian nor as an editor...but he warned at the beginning he would do that and explained why. I just was not fully on board. ...more
**spoiler alert** 23 minutes into the lecture, Magness introduces the term “monolatry”, and states that there is evidence that supports ancient Judais**spoiler alert** 23 minutes into the lecture, Magness introduces the term “monolatry”, and states that there is evidence that supports ancient Judaism as monolatry rather than monotheistic religion. She claims that Judaism acknowledged that the God of Israel was not the only God. He was just the “chief deity”. She sites as evidence, Psalm 86:8 (there is none like you among the Gods, oh Lord). She adds a Greek term, which is Theos Hypsistos, meaning “the Highest God” or “the God Most High”, and that ancient Greeks used this word to refer to the chief god in their pantheon (e.g. Zeus). While I agree that plenty of early Jews worshipped gods other than Jehovah, I absolutely do not subscribe to the conclusion that said worship conformed to Judaism.
I can see her argument, and it can be easily defended with stand-alone verses. The verses she cites are interactions between pagans and Jews – meaning it is pagans who are speaking to Jews about the God of Israel, referring to Him as higher than their own gods - the context of a pantheon. However, within the context of the whole Bible, I don’t believe there is an argument. These verses/words are used so the people to whom they are speaking (idolaters/former idolaters) have a point of reference as to what they’re talking about – milk before meat, as it were. Several Bible verses reiterate that there is only one God according to Judaism (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, James 2:19, 1 Cor 8:6 to name a few).
In the Hebrew Bible, “I AM THAT I AM” is what God calls Himself. Really, it’s the infinitive of the Hebrew verb “to be” (which covers past, present, and future i.e. eternity). Could God have made a clearer statement about His own existence, verses none of these other “gods” even exist? Idols and statues must be referred to as “gods” because the people God is dealing with are in cultures who worship them, and the entire point of referencing them is to warn Israel from worshipping them. I think the strongest argument Magness could have made is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” You could say that God is acknowledging that other gods exist. Well, they “exist” in that idols that mean make exist and are treated as gods…but their “godhood” doesn’t exist. These “gods” are only idols, and the people “worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. Their land also is full of idols. They worship the work of their own hands…” (Isaiah 28). Paul references “dumb idols” (1 Cor 12:2). The “gods” of the ancients can’t even speak!...because they’re not real. Without referring to these idols as gods (which is what the people treat them as), how are the people even to understand the first commandment?
I have to wonder why it is Magness feels it’s important to brand Judaism as a monolatrous religion rather than a monotheistic religion. I’ve never heard this argument made from a Jew nor a Christian. I’ve not yet met a member of either faith who would validate her argument. Being a very frequent victim myself of the “you believe this” argument, when I, in fact, do NOT believe what is being ascribed to me, I am far more reliant upon actual practicing members of a faith to tell me what it is they believe. Granted, this is ancient Judaism, but still. It also fascinates me why someone who does not believe would bother spending so much time on it. Why is it even important if it’s just a history lesson? I guess it’s interesting to her.
Next, I thought it odd that Magness talks about the origin of the Jews beginning with Exodus. Huh? The Israelites were in the Exodus. Jews come from Judah. The Israelites were comprised of all 12 tribes – all of the sons of Jacob – not just Judah and his descendants. It was so peculiar to me that she’d start there – in a foreign land, and talk about the Israelites as if they were only Jews. But perhaps she meant those who practice Judaism. Even then, I think it an odd place to start. Maybe she found it an easy common ground point, but it really put me off.
Later, when Magness talks about needing to be careful of authors’ biases in their writings, she mentions temple worship, and how Jeroboam was disobedient for worshipping (the implication is that he is worshipping Yahweh) in temples he builds. Magness says Jeroboam’s sin is that he is worshipping God outside “the” temple. Huh? Why does she completely omit the fact that Jeroboam set up image worship? Magness already cited that image worship was strictly prohibited. Jeroboam also ordained priests who were not Levites. This isn’t mentioned either. I’m confused as to why she says Jeroboam is marked a sinner for having built temples and worshipped God there. He couldn’t have been worshipping Yahweh if he built calves to worship – in express opposition to what Yahweh commanded.
Next, Magness cites that although Ahab was a capable political ruler, and Jezebel a promoter of Yahweh worship, the Bible denounces them both. Her point here is that the Bible is biased against any non-Israelites, because its authors are Hebrew. I can accept her point (even though I disagree), but the evidence she cites isn’t evidence at all. Here’s why: worship of Yahweh CANNOT, by definition, include any other worship of any other thing. That means if a worshipper “worships” Yahweh and/or anyone/anything else, it’s not actually worship of Yahweh. Worship of Yahweh is, by definition, completely an utterly exclusive.
Another glaring omission here is that Jezebel “cut off” and murdered the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13)! Leaving this out, Magness sums up Jezebel’s gruesome death and recounts her demise in a light that makes it sound as though it was merely because Jezebel was a woman. Jezebel really didn’t do anything to offend Yahweh. After all, she was inclusive of Him. Huh? I don’t think her arguments make sense.
When Magness talks about the Jews’ return from exile after they’re freed by Cyrus, she says that Ezra reads them a new practice of the law, which is that there shouldn’t be any marriage with non-Jews. HUH? What about Deuteronomy 7:3-4? This is not new at all. Not by a long shot. It seems to me that Magness is confusing practice with doctrine and/or policy. The Jews are notorious all throughout their own record for not being obedient to their own laws. Plenty of intermarriage was practiced…along with idolatry, lying, stealing, etc. But even when the people practice things outside of their religion, it doesn’t mean the religion has changed.
I loved Magness’s recounting of The Good Samaritan. It had never been pointed out to me before that the priest and the Levite were keeping Jewish law by not having anything to do with the Samaritan whom they perceived to be dead. My best guess is that the law in the time it was given served the purpose of separating Israel from idolatrous practices (which seems to me also to be the case in most, if not all of the dietary laws). The Jews in Jesus’ time were hardly in danger of adopting Egyptian mummification processes. Regardless of my speculation, I just loved learning this and appreciate Magness shedding light on this.
Regarding temples, Magness says that the Jews didn’t want any temples outside of Jerusalem, but then puts a lot of emphasis on a few temples outside of Jerusalem, about which the Jews didn’t appear to have any objection (Elephantine being one). She implies a double standard, since if one temple outside of Jerusalem isn’t endorsed, none should be. At issue, though is not where the temple is built (inside or outside of Jerusalem) but whether the temple is authorized by God. Are the priests His priests or were they appointed arbitrarily by the latest ruler for political reasons? 1 Chronicles 28:3 shows that David himself is prohibited (by God) from building a temple, because he’s got too much blood on his hands. Geography is not at issue here. Instead, worthiness is. In addition, it must be God who authorizes the temple and who is ordained to use His priesthood in worship there.
Because of the questionable conclusions and statements Magness makes in other parts other lectures, when she got to Lecture 6, which talks about “The Golden Rule” and how different sects (e.g. the Essenes at Qumran) understood it to be that you hate everyone except those of your own sect. I am very skeptical about this understanding. It’s entirely possible that she’s 100% correct, but at this point, I would really prefer to see the data on this rather than just take Magness at her interpretation.
In Lecture 7, we get to the comparison of Alexander the Great and Jesus. This was definitely a new angle for me, so it was interesting to hear about. However, again, I take a strong objection at her paralleling them as to when she says because they both died at 33, they’re presumed not to have finished their purpose/mission (I’m broadly paraphrasing here). Any Christian will tell you that although Christ died at 33, that was part of the crowing point of His mission! He was to die as an offering for sin for all and resurrect Himself after the third day. Per Christian belief, Christ wasn’t cut short from His mission at all. He completed it exactly as was His plan.
In Lecture 8, Magness shares a lot of fascinating and really useful information about tax collectors – specifically “tax farming” (which was a new term to me). All I ever knew is that tax collectors were hated, because it was assumed that they overcharged the citizens and pocketed the rest of the money themselves. Magness gives the whole background behind this, which I never knew about before. It makes a lot of sense and helped me understand the New Testament context much better. I loved this part of her lecture!
In Lecture 9, Magness mentions Heliodorus affair and Maccabean revolt, which was a name/concept new to me. I was aware of Green influence, but there is a whole history here, which helps give context to the day that Jesus was living in, and like the excerpt on tax collecting, I really enjoyed this part and found it to be useful in understanding the peoples and cultures of the Bible better.
Lecture 10 goes over apocalyptic works and how they differ from eschatological works. This was maybe the most fascinating lecture for me, because she outlines the differences, commonalities, and covers apocalyptic material and its origin. Also, she mentions the aim, which is to give encouragement: no empire will last except, ultimately, the Kingdom of God. That was a really elucidating to hear, because it’s easy to forget that focus when you’re reading about the horrors of Revelation. She also mentions the Apocrypha in addition to all manner of books about Enoch and flood traditions. I was aware of almost none of what she covered here and found it really interesting.
Also in this lecture, Magness takes a look at the different meanings of “Son of Man” – including in apocalyptic descriptions, depending on the context, including whether the verse uses a definite or an indefinite article (Heb 2:6, Psalms 8:4; Rev 1:13, 14:14 Dan 7:13, Matt 24:30-31, 37-39, Luke 17:22-30). That was really great information – both useful and interesting!
In Lecture 12, Magness talks about Jesus citing Isaiah when he chides the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, drawing near with their lips but not with their hearts. She continues that His criticism is due to their not following the written law, but the oral law. That concept was new to me, and I think it’s perhaps part of what Jesus meant, but far more was that they were keeping only the letter of the law and not the spirit. Though Matt 23:27 isn’t cited, I believe it’s key here, because it illustrates what Christ means. They look good with their outward doings, but their souls are not godly, but instead, inside it is as if they have dead men’s bones. I would expect a scholar to focus on the practical/logical application and completely miss the spiritual teaching here, but I think it’s possible He may have meant both. Her point is an interesting one to consider, but I hardly think it was Christ’s primary concern.
In Lecture 15, Magness mentions the Essenes again. I had forgotten that the Essenes were Zadokites, and therefore inherited the priesthood through their lineage. I had no idea that the Essenes believed in three separate messianic figures – the royal, the priestly, and the prophetic. She adds that for Jesus, He and His disciples considered Him all three on one. I agree with her overall assessment of the Essenes but thought it interesting she omits their referring to themselves as the Saints of the Latter Days. I had no idea that there were scholars who believe Christ might be an Essene. I again agree 100% with Magness and with her reasoning that He was not.
In Lecture 17, a lot of fascinating background information is given on Herod and the politics of his day. It was so helpful to have this context, and I look forward to studying the New Testament with the illumination of this information. The many intrigues of Herod’s life really help in understanding the context of his paranoia, his practices, and his reasons for his conduct. I had no idea that there were scholars who believe that Herod never issued an edict to murder the babies in Jesus’ time. That was definitely new info.
In Lecture 23, Magness shares some information about Jesus’ miracles. She points out specifically that in the story of the leper who is made “clean” (as opposed to “healed”), and the instructions he receives to go to the priest and why (not to be healed, but to be pronounced/diagnosed as clean and to begin ritual purification), this relates to the Kingdom of God insofar as the Jews of Jesus’ day saw. I didn’t know that according to the law, all the miracles Jesus performed insofar as healing people comprehensively addressed all “uncleanness” according to the law: leprosy, paralysis, a withered hand, hemorrhages, deafness, dumbness, unclean spirits, demonic possessions, and blindness. The physical ones all correspond with afflictions mentioned in The Rule of the Congregation as disqualifying people to the eschatological assembly. It was an overpoweringly emotional moment for me to realize this, because it drives home the point in a very literal way that Christ both has and exercises His ability to heal every part of us: physical, spiritual, emotional, mental, social, EVERYTHING. She also points out Jesus’s inclusivity vs. the Essenes’ exclusivity. Her final analysis comes out very literal and mundane: Jesus understood that no physically unclean thing could enter God’s presence, so He healed people to make them eligible. Though she clearly opines this as nothing more than a connecting of the dots, it is so beautiful and profound.
In Lecture 24, I was bowled over with the information she provides on Mark 9:43-48. Magness posits that this is specifically talking about male sexual transgressions. In Hebrew, the word “hand” can also mean “penis”. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically addresses genitalia being uncovered due to torn clothing. Rabbinic literature also references the hand as the penis and prohibits male masturbation. The foot also refers to sexual transgression, because it can also mean “penis”. She cites Isaiah 6:2 to. The eye refers to male sexual transgression – specifically referencing Samson in Rabbinic literature of Samson’s eyes lusting after the female flesh. My first thought was that she was citing a New Testament text, but talking about Hebrew translations. However, since these laws are referencing the Law from the Old Testament, it makes sense.
Also in this lecture, she mentions “shaol”, as cited in the Old Testament, which we think of as hell, but which is more accurately rendered simply as a place of darkness. Gehenna is also mentioned as well as background info on that. These words will be super interesting subjects for me to study further, once I can pull out my Concordance. This lecture had the most meat in it for me, and I loved that I could listen to it again and again. I learned a ton.
Last of all, I loved the insight (no pun intended) Magness gives regarding the miracle of Christ spitting into the dirt/clay to heal the blind man. That was truly beautiful.
Even though I take some pretty major issue with several of Magness’s presmises, I appreciated all the information she provides, which I really think accomplishes her purpose: educating the student on what Judaism was like in Jesus’s time so that the information we have can shed light on His teachings. I’d recommend it to anyone who has any interest in history and/or Jesus. It was a fascinating series of lectures. For anyone who struggles with Midwestern and/or Maryland accents like I do, prepare yourself....more
Really amazing story. I bought it for my parents to read. It is an impressive illustration of how God works much more effectively on the destitute (noReally amazing story. I bought it for my parents to read. It is an impressive illustration of how God works much more effectively on the destitute (no matter what the form/s of destitution) than anything else. I found particularly interesting the speaking in tongues bit, which I am interested in studying more about in the New Testament particularly....more
This is really short, but it's a great intro to the temple. Sweat makes great points and helps the reader to understand what to expect and why as wellThis is really short, but it's a great intro to the temple. Sweat makes great points and helps the reader to understand what to expect and why as well as how to prepare. It's a really great introduction to the temple!...more
Another wonder from Metaxas. This is so comprehensive, and while you can see the author is a big fan of Luther's, he doesn't gloss over, edit out, or Another wonder from Metaxas. This is so comprehensive, and while you can see the author is a big fan of Luther's, he doesn't gloss over, edit out, or minimize at all the hard stuff - and there is some really hard stuff to accept about Luther. There were so many doctrinal takeaways that were fascinating to explore, and so much history here! I was intrigued to learn that Albrecht Dürer and Luther were contemporaries and knew each other. I thought this book would take me a week or so to finish, but it was compelling enough for me to enjoy it sufficiently to pick it up any chance I could get. Metaxas is an outstanding author - right up there with David McCullough - in how he can make history so compellingly fascinating and articulate it in a way that makes sense and causes the reader to analyze and reconsider people and concepts. I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in religion. It is a gripping book. ...more
Loading...
