Reddit reviews Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
We found 23 Reddit comments about Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The apocalyptic prophet model first came into vogue with Albert Schweitzer's seminal Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906. It has become the majority view in modern critical scholarship (though not a universal one). basically it's the view that Jesus is best understood as a prophet who was predicting an imminent and radical intervention of God into the natural world. Jesus framed this intervention as a coming "kingdom" and believed (according to this theory) that basically God was going to come and smite the enemies of Israel, restore the Davidic monarchy and initiate the Messianic age. He thought this was literally going to happen within his own generation, so basically (to put it bluntly), the theory is that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet,
Some major scholars who defend this view include Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium) E. P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, JP Meiers' massive Marginal Jew series, Dale Allison (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet), and Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. There are many others.
There are some who propose other views, though, like the Zealot theory already mentioned, and the "Sapiential Kingdom" (basically Jesus as a wisdom teacher and social transformer) proposed by Crossan and Funk.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium that is a good exposition of the mainstream view of Jesus among Bible scholars, as an apocalyptic prophet.
This is not how Christians think of Jesus, they've gotten used to a Jesus who doesn't come back and they have a relationship with him inside their heads.
Bart Ehrman describes how the later gospels downplay the apocalyptic message, as it became obvious that Jesus wasn't coming back within the lifetimes of his generation.
Being a Bible scholar, analytically studying the Bible, has a tendency to deconvert people. Bart Ehrman was once a Christian.
So a few things first. Aslan's Zealot is not, in any way historical scholarship. It's pop history that is mostly dismissed among actual historians. Similarly, O'reilly's book is likewise almost useless since he is a journalist, not a historian. While both provide some interesting facts (mostly taken out of context) neither actually present an understanding of the historical Jesus as understood by historians.
Several I'd recommend are:
Ehrman, Bart's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
This book is written by one of the world's most well-respected historians on Early Christianity. This is also the very first book I had to read in graduate school on the historical Jesus and it's engaging and easy to read for non-historians. It also presents the view that the historical Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet in the proper context -- which also happens to be what the vast majority of historians believe about the historical Jesus. Ehrman is also agnostic (like myself) but he doesn't attack religion.
Crossan, John Dominic: The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
This is another excellent book. This book like, Ehrman's attempts to pain a proper contextual understanding of the historical Jesus, but does it in a different light -- he focuses on who the man was rather than what his primary preaching message was.
Sanders, E.P.: The Historical Figure of Jesus
I'd only recommend this one if the other two have been finished. It focuses on Judaism and Christianity and the dynamics of the historical Jesus after he died and the effects he had on his early followers.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or if I can help in any other way.
This is eloquently put. To add to the point of learning from freethinkers I would like to recommend some reading material. First, I would advise becoming familiar with skepticism. The ideal text for this is The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. In order to educate yourself on comparative religion (as far as monotheism is concerned) I would recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Third, specifically regarding Christianity and more specifically the NT I would go to Bart Ehrman. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Hope this helps anyone trying to inoculate themselves to misinformation.
>Jesus' weapon is his word.
Even if this is accurate, you are still admitting he was implying that he was a weapon that was going to divide families, and change the social order of the Jewish religion.
As a apocalyptic preacher, this fits in with his statements like Luke 11:23 "He who is not with me is against me". as well as the metaphor of the temple splitting in half when he died.
So it seems clear he was preaching revolution, regardless of violent intent.
If you want to understand some of the criticism against the character of Jesus, this book may be interesting.
>as he and the large majority of his followers were until the 3rd century AD.
Not really true, early Christians were persecuted yes, but they also were very antagonistic towards the pagan temples and libraries, and once they gained political power, they quickly eradicated them.
The gospels seem to be talking about one specific person. Who was born around the year 4 BC in Nazareth to Joseph and Mary. He had a number of brothers and sisters. One of the brothers, James, played an important role in the early Jerusalem community after Jesus' death. In fact Paul met James and talked to him. They had a number of disagreements and Paul even made fun of him. James probably didn't have a good opinion about Paul as well. Jesus from the gospels was also a follower (well not necessarily a follower, but Jesus definitely sympathized with John's teaching and he got baptized by him) of John the Baptist, who was also an apocalyptic preacher. He performed exorcisms and healings (or at least that's what the people of the time though he was doing), he preached about the kingdom of god that was about to come to earth. He might have considered him self to be the messiah, but we are not sure. His preaching of the coming kingdom of god and the possible claims to messianship were probably understood as Jesus assuming the prerogatives of a king. Which was why the Romans crucified him. He was crucified around the year 30 AD. His closest followers started claiming he was resurrected after death.
Bart Ehrmans book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium goes in to much more details about the life and the teaching of the historical Jesus.
Specifically,
>Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth.
A real flesh-n-blood person. Not a divine being.
Read all about it here
A great book to start with is Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium . Or you could try Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ. Either one is an excellent introduction to the subject with a good guide to how we can glean information about ancient figures like Jesus from our usually biased sources. Unlike Carrier, both are non-Christians but without the crippling anti-Christian bias that warps Carrier's work. Always beware of ideologues.
I think
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman could be what you are looking for. The author tries to answer the question: approaching things as a historian, what can we say about the life and teachings of Jesus. There's also a series of Teaching Company lectures that cover the same material.
With all due respect to psstein's post, I cannot endorse his syntopic problem list. For sure read Goodacre, but read it knowing that it is highly contentious and still not accepted by the majority of scholars. Streeter is a light and easy read, but he is outdated, having written almost 100 years ago. Farmer's theory, too, has few adherents, and the other two are redundant if you just read Goodacre.
My suggestions include first this article. This will quickly get you caught up on the basics.
For books, Pheme Perkins' Introduction to the Synoptic Problem is a great beginner's guide. I heartily recommend it before diving into the particulars of each major theory.
Speaking of major theory, Kloppenborg's Excavating Q is right up there as the most important book on Q. If you want to understand 2ST, start here.
psstein has it covered with Historical Jesus, though I would also recommend Erhman's Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
For textual criticism, you'll want Metzger's Textual Commentary on the New Testament for sure, but do check out Tov's guide on the Hebrew bible while you're at it. (Older version is cheaper.)
Absolutely. There's a few I'd recommend. The first is a very basic book. I read it when I was studying early Christianity during my bachelor's (I am a historian and have a BS and an MA in historical studies). It's called Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. It's a very well respected book and many universities across the country use it for intro level courses into textual criticism of the New Testament. (Textual Criticism is historical term for examining the bible through the lens of a historian, looking for history, rather than for spirituality). My best friend who has an MA in theology from Iliff School of Theology read it in one of his first courses. It provides a very easy introduction into understanding what historians have known about the New Testament for the last century.
If that doesn't seem appealing, I can also recommend a number of other books that are awesome too.
Please let me know if you have questions. I am passionate about it and love discussing it with people. I'm also not a pushy atheist. I don't try and de-convert people. I just think that if people want to remain Christian, they should be educated about New Testament history.
I recommend you read Dr. Bart Ehrman if you are interested in this subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X
Sure, we have to consider those possibilities when just looking at the broad outlines of the subject, but most historians find that we can determine rather a lot about the historical Jesus upon detailed critical examination of our sources. I recommend reading the work of experts like E. P. Sanders and Bart Ehrman.
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman
It's been a few years but I recall it being pretty enlightening at the time. I never really bought most of the critisism of Aslan's book. It might be because both this book and Aslan's had kind of the same take - Jesus as a figure far outside of the mainstream and more a Revolutionary than a Shepherd. (Speaking of Shepherds - if you want to enjoy a completely non-Historical but insanely funny story of Jesus, try Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal.)
Although it's beside the point of the joke. Most historians of this topic would probably not laugh, believing Jesus not to have actually been a Christian:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X
(A popular book on the most well-accepted scholarly beliefs about Jesus)
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman, secular New Testament scholar.
Here's a really good book on exactly this question. Note: it's written by Bart Ehrman, former evangelical, now agnostic. He's a well respected theology professor though.
> Erhman's main point is that Jesus and his followers were Apocalypticists.
Are you sure that was the main point of "Lost Christianities"? I read it in 2007 and don't have my copy accessible right now, but I found this interview with Ehrman about the topics covered by the book. It talks about alternative Christianities such as the viewpoint of Marcions, Ebionites, and Gnostics.
Is it possible you're thinking of "Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium", by the same author?
I am not a theist btw -- I am a diest at best. I just don't like reading nonsense (in any form).
If you believe that Jesus is 100% mythical, I would like to present Barth Ehrman, a highly respect HISTORIAN who has spent a great deal of his career on separating the myth of Christ from the reality.
He is just one of many HISTORIANS who work on things like this. They have a wide variety of tools for the work of separating myth from history. Are you aware of any of them?
Here are some of Bart's books:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199740305/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-8
You may also want to check out "the Context Group" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group
Here are some of their books:
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Galilean-Shaman-Anthropological-Historical-Perspective/dp/0227173201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421621&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peasants-Matrix-Mediterranean-Context/dp/1597522759
Now it's your turn -- please present scholarly and respected sources for the idea that Jesus is 100% myth.
I can help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty
http://www.thegodmovie.com
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278422009&sr=8-1
These people DO have an ideological ax to grind. I'm not buying it. Are there myths in the story of Christ? Of course. Is it 100% myth with no historical figure behind it at all? No way.
Hitch could have even thrown in the incompatibility of Jesus' teachings and capitalism.
On Hitches points in that video, heres a good read:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X
The Jesus historians study. The apocalyptic prophet who was from Nazareth, baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified by the Romans.
[Here is a book ](
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1412194172&sr=8-2&keywords=apocalyptic+prophet)by a very well respected New Testament historian (who is also an agnostic), which is about the historical Jesus, and how/why we know certain things about him.
>Of course that's not the only viable translation...the purpose of posting that verse was to remind/establish the claim of corruption and that the translation implying it has backing from the other verses of the Quran.
It is about corruption if I agree with your translation. If we go with the other translations it's about establishing Mohammed's prophetic credentials and continuity with previous Scriptures.
>If you accept that there is historical evidence for corruption in the Bible and that they twist/abuse the interpretation then what is your issue with that translation?
>The claim wasn't it was lost forever so you are arguing against something that wasn't even claimed again.
You're going to sit here and say to me that Muslims don't claim that the Injil is lost?
And yes, I don't think that the Qur'an ever says that the books it describes are lost. That's my entire point!
>Which fits very well with the unknown authors of the Bible messing with it, likely to convince Jews and force Jesus to fulfill various prophecies. 2:75 is reasoning that if a party of them heard Allah's word before and tampered with it even though they understood it, why would they believe in what is simply more of Allah's word?
I already dealt with this here:
>The Qur'an will that "there is a party of them who distort the book with their tongues" (Q3:78) (note that this is not the textual alteration form of tahrif -of which there are four) but it also says that there is a party of the People of the Book who are upright and follow the revelation and do not sell the book for a miserable gain (Q3:113, Q3:199). What are they following if it's all lost?
The basic point remains: there is no global loss. Some people who know the context distort it.
The verse never situates this in the time of Jesus btw.
>Who said they are gone?
Muslims. Muslims are the ones who claim that the Injil is not the Injil that we have but is lost.
and you. Did you not say:
>Yes we can as nobody has the Gospel in the first place
How is that different from the Gospel being lost?
> Once again you ARE arguing as if the Quran claims all of it is lost, which doesn't even make sense as the verse right there says there is a party of them or in the other verse "So woe to those" or "woe to their learned people" not to mention the verses already posted. The translations with parts of the message would obviously be considered still there as it's not like the message is completely different especially as regards Jesus words, but then you get into interpretation.
I mean, I don't think that the Qur'anic author thinks they're lost, given that he told them that Mohammed was in those Scriptures. I think Muslims have had to say that they were totally lost because, well, Mohammed isn't in Jewish and Christian scriptures, any that we have anyway.
I think the Qur'an thinks that Jews and Christians still have them and that's a problem since their Scriptures as we know them don't back him.
>Of course it matters, if it's true/false then we'll have to rethink our whole approach and in reality if it really didn't matter then this never would have been brought up.
I've explained to you my position.
>The Quranic claim isn't all that different than what historians claim. If we look at it in general it's claiming there has been tampering to the previous scriptures. That verses are being twisted, which is a bit more subjective, but Jesus pbuh words vs the doctrine is contradictory and has been demonstrated more than enough on this sub.
Accepting that the Qur'anic claim coincides with one particular historians' claim is not the same thing as accepting the rest of the claims of the Qur'an or its credibility.
The issue is why should I trust the Qur'an here either, when it contains stories that are even older and just as legendary, unless I just stipulate from the beginning that it is the word of God?
The Bible was compiled later than claimed, sure. It was edited, sure. But the point is that the Qur'an tells them to judge by their books and the books that we know they had are not the books that back Qur'anic teachings.
moreover, you want to cite the scholars here on Biblical editing or corruption but not so much when it says that the Christian books that share miracles with the Qur'an are the older, heretical ones.
>What do you mean "their structure is not as doubted"?
When we say "the Bible" or "the Torah" or "New Testament". By the sixth century we know what books are in the Bible/Torah/New Testament, we have manuscripts of those books and so on.
If you said: we don't have a 400BCE copy of Genesis...you'd be right.
But, by the time of Mohammed, we know what these books are like. So when Mohammed is telling people to judge by books they have...we know those books don't support his claims.
>The books are lost claim is a strawman. Which verse(s) are you using to claim the Quran says they are lost? Your claims are contradictory at this point especially when you just posted about "alteration" mentioned in 2:75.
So your tactic is to take my argument, agree and then complain that I am strawmanning a claim that you made (no one has the Gospel)?
Have you lost the thread?
>Which scholars? The kind that push blatant liars or willful ignorance as mentioned by Ehrman? It seems pretty obvious that if he meant in his lifetime he wouldn't be talking about another to come.
Ehrman's problem is with fundamentalists. You take his criticisms of them to mean that he has a problem with biblical scholarship generally and that's just false.
Ehrman himself is one of the scholars who dates Mark at 70AD and Paul at 50AD no matter what he says in his debates with fundamentalists so you should take the issue up with him as well if you now want to claim that he's a blatant liar.
You may not know this, but he wrote an entire book titled: Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium where he posits that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher expecting the imminent end of the age and that people like Paul also expected the new world within their lifetimes.
The man you are citing disagrees with you.
Hello!
Just because there is no evidence that any religion has it right doesn't mean there is no God.
I urge you to not completely discard your Christianity. Jesus became a myth creature only later, there was a real jesus who did actually say some profound stuff. So i'd recommend you look at what practices and teachings you had during your Christianity and maintain some of them, but for different reasons than formally. Oh and if you are intellectually curious as to what Jesus actually said and actually believed I'd recommend The Gospel of Jesus, which has an interesting take, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, which is more historically rigorous, and the Five Gospels: What did Jesus really say?, which is a good reference book on the historicity of individual biblical Jesus quotes
Oh and ---> Christian Deism