77goanywhere, well, John of Patmos wasn't Jesus! John of Patmos wrote his own revenge fantasy - probably because he was stuck on Patmos against his will. His writings have nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus might've taught originally. Not that we know for sure what exactly Jesus preached originally. But as a Jewish teacher who believed that the apocalypse was near and who probably also believed that he was the true Jewish messiah, he must've expected a certain amount of violence to unfold in the near future, even if he himself didn't see himself as a warrior.
Thanks much for this. I'm no scholar, but I have read the book of Revelation, and unless one is a believer who is accustomed to a lot of pretzely explanations, it's pretty clear what it is: revenge porn.
Seemingly! He throws Jezebel on a bed, rapes her, then (waits around 9 months or goes away and comes back) and kills THEIR children, NOT an abortion: He waits till after they're born to make it more murderously acceptable to his followers. It's All True cuz it's The Inerrant Word of God, don't like it?? Take it up with Mr John Patmos, 666th cave on the right, Looney Tunes Insane Asylum, Your town, USA.
NT Jesus believes in deferred violence not non violence. He says: villages that don’t accept his disciples will be obliterated…I came not to bring peace but a sword….bring my enemies here and slay them before me (I asked Bart about this verse on his blog and he agreed NT Jesus is referring to himself at the end of this parable when he says this). Revelation is simply this deferred violence come to fruition. For more see The Bad Jesus by Hector Avalos.
Well said. It's clear every New Testament author believed this as well. Peace and prosperity is the goal, however if shunned, assured judgement/destruction/retribution is promised instead
Yes, it surprises me that Bart seems to not be noticing this, or perhaps is choosing not to emphasize it. It seems a very natural connection to his work on Jesus' apocalyptic message which says eventually God will have vengeance.
@@SeekingVirtueA Yes, here I think it’s the later - choosing not to emphasize it here. He does talk more freely on his blog when asked specific questions or even in some iviews I’ve heard him do. But when creating content aimed at a wider audience is sometimes (not always) more careful to drive between the white lines and appeal to the widest audience possible without alienating anyone.
Jesus clearly said after their death, Lazarus was in comfort while rich man was dying of thirst but can't die. That is worst than locust from hell for only 6 months. Jesus said men will ask mountains to fall on them because of fear. Jesus is not a pacifist. Rather, He is a dynamic teacher that pulls together polar opposites. He hang out with prostitutes and sinners, and tell them to be sinless. He tells Pharisee who are sinless religious leaders their father is the devil. Then he tells ordinary people you have to be even more sinless than Pharisee to get to heaven. He was beat and slapped across the face, then tells these same people he was the Messiah they have been waiting for all this time. He was at the mercy of powerful Roman ruler, and tells the ruler God gave him his power. Then of the absolute worst of worst sinner, the guy next to Him on the cross, that was the only person Jesus ever gave the promise he will go to heaven. You can't pick a worst guy to give that promise. Jesus's actions have many polar opposites. Not surprising, He tells of God's great love and great punishment. Bart Ehrman knows all this already. Jesus is not a one dimension weed smoking hippie pacifist. We have to look for the truth. If someone mis-represent what they already know, that is not honesty. Run, don't stay and be misled.
I don't think Jesus was a pacifist in the gospels. For instance, he says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34). Also, there is his judgment on unrepentant towns in Matt. 11:20-24. So, the contrast between Jesus of the gospels and Jesus in Revelation is not as clear as Dr. Ehrman states.
Agreed...and there are other examples as well. Its clear that NT Jesus believes in deferred violence not non violence. Big difference. Revelation is this deferred violence come to fruition. For more see: The Bad Jesus The Ethics of NT Ethics by Dr. Hector Avalos
Angry John treats the Christ figure as a failure. A failure bent on taking vengeance for his shortcomings. It's not a revenge fantasy because people did not choose to follow him, or that could have been made explicit at least once. The concept of a failed messiah is a central theme in Jewish theology (e.g. Shabbetai Tzvi is a well-documented example). If John of Patmos was raised in a Jewish apocalyptic milieu, combining the notion of a cursed messiah with apocalyptic imagery is not that surprising. There are failed messiahs, and then there is what Jesus did. It is a whole other level of failure to be cursed like that. If people ignore the Jewish context for the Jesus event, interpretations will lack the context required for accurate understanding. I think Paul's mission was, among other evils, to obfuscate the Jewishness of the Jesus event.
I think the revelation probably did so much more to promote Christianity than the gospels could on their own. It's all fine and well to "love your enemies", but many philosophers said that same thing throughout history and it's never been a huge best seller. But sprinkle in "because God's going to crush your enemies for you, better than you ever could by yourself" to the pot and you've got yourself a stew.
Better question is why Revelations was includedin the Bible in the first place. The leaders of the churches would have known that it was about Caesar. And that very few people would understand that. They may as well have included Enoch at least doing so would be less dishonest
20:00 - Christ "gets revenge" not for His own death (which he asked the Father to forgive) but for the persecution of the saints and martyrs. On a larger scale, God's wrath targets everyone who commits sin and does not repent. Which I would hope is one reason (not the only one, or the best one) to avoid not repenting.
Thank you so much for posing this question. Your answer importantly confirms the growing impression that I have had that indeed the Christ of Revelation is not the same as the Christ of the 4 Gospels. I am disturbed by this growing impression and your answer helps me to take appropriate action to protect myself from what is properly perceived as repulsive and unacceptable behavior and character of Christ. This is a terrible realization to be in.
I don't see the Jesus of the gospels as consistently pacifist. He is ever ready with threats of a horror to come, e.g. Mark 9:47-48: ...it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Ge·hen´na, 48 where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out. ..
Yeah, he has totally mischaracterized Jesus's full message in the gospels. Paul and the other apostles also speak of the coming judgment of God through his Christ.
We read into Jesus being non-violent - but for what happened to him - dosn’t that require an insurrectionist - someone believing that God’s intervention would be violent, exonerating Jesus and his followers of violence - while celebrating violence on the ruling state - jesus gets it both ways - nonviolent messiah and the beneficiary of God’s violence that alters and realigns history
An excellent discussion drawing on our age's understanding of the projection of our unseen inner conflicts upon Christ as an idealized image. Not only does this change with time, place, and cultural values but anyone who is honest with themself knows our unconscious shadows assert their effect at inconvenient times. Their strength is proportional to how much we suppress our negative feelings in trying to live up to our conscious ideal seen in Jesus. The writer of Revelation must have been extremely devoted to living up to "loving his enemies" and "turning the other cheek" and therefor suppressed those natural reactions that in later life demanded compensation by being expressed in his vengeful words
Jessica Rabbit in "Who Shot Roger Rabbit" said "I not bad, they just drew me this way". Jesus might say, "I'm not bloodthirsty, humans just invented me this way."
The funniest part is that an ad popped up in the middle of this video that shows a scene from The Chosen where Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar.
I always want these episodes to be longer because the information provided is fascinatingly enlightening. This show motivates me to study these topics more in depth & research the related academic literature as much as I can. Thank you Prof. BART EHRMAN & Dr. Megan Lewis !!
I'm speculating because I know nothing about this subject but, on the issue of the violence in Revelation, could it be that John of Patmos is a Jew who continues to believe in the jealous and vengeful God of the Old Testament??
If Jesus was a apocalypticist then he knew the violence that was about to be wrought upon the Earth, which he thought was going to be not long after his death. If he was going to be alongside his Father when this was occurring then the teaching of peace whilst he was alive was to just try and save a few more poor souls before Judgement Day arrived.
Marcus Borg (and others) suggested aligning the New Testament in chronological order to better see how the many narratives about Jesus evolved over time. Of course determining the dates for each book is a bit speculative but there is some consensus among historical scholars as to the general order. Revelation (according to many) was written in the mid nineties - four decades after the authentic Pauline letters and over two decades after the destruction of the Temple and the earliest gospel (Mark). Not sure if there was some previous notion of a thousand year reign in other (non canonical) writings of the time but from reading some of the Apocryphal documents you can see plenty of new (and weird) narratives that developed over time.
@@stevearmstrong6758 and what evidence do they have for that claim? If you watch any videos on the subject, you'll see that the scholarly opinions are totally speculation with regards to that subject.
@@stevearmstrong6758 You should see what Kenneth Gentry has to say about the book of Revelation. It was written prior to 70 AD and was for telling the destruction of the temple and Jewish polity (code named Babylon the Great).
Jesus didn't promote violence? Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Jesus clearly said at Matthew 26:52: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus was teaching a lesson at Luke 22:36 that they should not resort to violence, even when confronted by an armed crowd. Peter took the ear off the high priest's slave, so Jesus said what he did at Matthew 26:52.
I like how in John of Patmos' dream, he has God looking through a scroll. Really pins 📌 The Lord (who is meant to be God Always, Timeless) in that time. If John had that dream in 1965, it would have been a book. 2023, probably God would be using an iPad. Seems to me that the guys who decided to package the Bible, would have done well to leave out John of Patmos meanderings, nightmares and delusions (drugs?). Surely they could have scratched up some other scroll or have another 'anonymous' write one?
Yes, that’s how it always seemed to me as well. The most disturbing thing about Revelation is not Revelation itself-there are and presumably have always been bloodthirsty ranting maniacs-but that it is included in the Bible, that it is approved of and exalted.
Idk. If I'm going to end the world my plans are going to be sealed with wax in a scroll. Its less threatening to picture a deity in a black turtleneck threatening to unleash douchebags on the earth via an iPad. Besides, Apple already did that apocalypse.
Surely this is a response to Nero's persecution? The author, enraged at seeing Christians set alight, envisages a warrior Christ, not unlike the God of Isaiah, who came with his garments splattered with blood?
The real historical Jesus was most likely a doomsday prophet/preacher, and as we all know those types of characters can be pretty doom and gloom, so...I'm pretty sure he talked a lot about the violent things that would happen to the "enemies of God."
The real Jesus, like several 1st century rabbis, was a travelling miracle worker, in particular he seems to have specialised in exorcism. Without the movement that developed after his execution that is likely how he would have been remembered.
It’s hard to connect the pre Easter Jesus with the Jesus portrayed in Revelation. The Jesus portrayed in Revelation was the super warrior that the Jews were hoping for - one who would defeat Rome and restore the Kingdom. But that was far different than the Jesus who preached love and repentance. It seems clear that the Jesus of Revelation- and of the other later writings - was an evolution of the narrative that had begun during hs life but clearly took on mythical proportions over time.
“Those types”? If Jesus were merely another of “those types”, he wouldn’t have been worth remembering. Gandhi was not merely one of “a type”, and neither was Socrates, Buddha, or Jesus,
Amen! This seems absurd to say that Jesus didn't prophesy in the gospels that he was going to come avenge! Paul and the other apostles also speak of Christ's vengeance.
So why the sermon on the mount? Which God should we believe in? The God who takes cruel vengeance on his enemies or the God who forgives them and does good to them?
@@77goanywhere both aspects are present in this parable showing that Jesus saw no inconsistency here. Notice he talks about forgiving and then talks about tormenting. Mat 18:33-35 WTB 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. If we respond appropriately to the grace of God, we will receive mercy. If we harden ourself against him, he will repay with wrath. This is nothing new. This was God's character from the beginning. Exo 20:5-6 NHEB 5 you must not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth [generation] of those who hate me, 6 and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Genuine questions: Does it really make sense to believers that Jesus, a man/god whose profile is infamously that of a being of peace, mercy and forgiveness, will have all those attitudes magically reverse themselves on his return? In fact, since Jews expected a "warrior king" the first time, and your religion says they got it wrong...isn't it also possible that Christian predictions of his returning to wreck up the place are *equally* wrong (Christ returns to find his followers have made the same mistake the Jews did, and wondering, "Where is everyone getting this idea from??")? Lastly, and most importantly, if YOU are a follower, and become convinced that some warlord IS the returned Messiah as he claims...would you put aside your belief in peace and unity and start killing entire populations because He commanded you to?
Equally wrong how?Jews think of Christ coming to rule with them over the roman empire and so on ,and what about sin?Seems to me that Theologically they have contradicted Gods Nature to suit theirs when none of the prophecies even say anything about Rome.
None of those attitudes will be reversed if moral judgement is being dealt. People speak of Wrath murder when referring to innocents but don't speak about death penalty or punishment when given to those suspects or criminals. The double standard doesn't seem to apply when humans use the permanent solution to a temporary problem.
6:50 Yes, Jesus advocates nonviolence so that God can be the avenger. We see Jesus Christ, the son of God being the avenger of the Covenant in Revelation.
I don't understand how someone can say that Jesus is the lamb in this book, he's out for blood, turning water to blood, inflicting flying locusts on people stinging folks, allowing s0ic1de but not dying as the pain is intolerable, and killing 1/3 of the Earth whenever the frell he feels like it Yeah, what a loving god toward creation. This I think is the elevation and upping the ante on Rome to the final showdown. It had to end spectacularly with an enemy that would deceive the world Also, what was the concept of the world back then? How could someone "all over the world" see something (referring to the two witnesses at the wall) I've always wondered about that piece
In Mark 1:2-3 of the KJV, it says "As it is written in the prophets..." "Prophets" is pluralized because what is written after that is a combination of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Yes, other bible versions incorrectly just say "...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." Mark then indicates that the messenger is John the Baptist. Could the messenger actually be Jesus instead? Jesus did spend 40 days in the wilderness after being baptized by John.
God has been sending missionaries for two millenia and people still ain't hearing. Jesus even explained this in his parable where he talks about the owner of the vineyard sending his servants and then he even sent his Son, and what did they do to the son. There comes a point where there have been enough messengers and vengeance is all that is understood.
This was a really great one. I don't know exactly why, but it all seems really smooth and fun. Unfortunately... the subjects always strikes me as disturbing. Somehow, somewhere, someone always seems to say, "you know, we really need to torture people, because things aren't going they way they should."
I suspect torture works better than Bart's suggested "God will send down a teacher to convince them not to be evil", since it's only a description of the future, not something God's actually doing in the present. Fear of punishment works better than the promise that someone will someday come to explain the right way to do things.
Bart Ehrman, as he acknowledges, is going against the scholarly consensus in claiming that Revelation teaches that God/Christ uses violence to solve problems. Ehrman is a _textual_ scholar; that's his expertise. He is _not_ an exegete _per se_ . There are much better scholars of the Book of Revelation, such as Caird and Bauckham. His argument is based on assumptions. The text tells us that the Lion of Judah became a slaughtered lamb, not vice versa. You would have though the the lamb would have become a lion if Ehrman's interpretation were correct.
What led me to question the Bible growing up was arguments with other Christians over how non-violent Jesus was. I saw more of the "turn the other cheek" Jesus where some others saw more of the "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" Jesus. This contradiction led me to questioning the Bible more and about what it may really say. Eventually, for numerous reasons, I could no longer accept the Bible and little later Christianity.
The mistake you made then and the mistake you continue to make now is to assume the Bible is monolithic. If you’re going to reject the Bible, at least reject it on its own terms.
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's not like I didn't find some way of explaining it away, and after this incident I actually became more of a zealot, but the seeds of questioning the Bible had been planted none-the-less. Like I said, for numerous reasons I could no longer accept the Bible. It's not like my belief was entirely destroyed by one seeming contradiction.
If I was God hell would only last until the spirit realizes the truth, which will never take an eternity... being almighty I could probably show anyone how it is better to love God without the need for any hell.
Maybe someone on the thread knows: were there OTHER preachers at the time whose followers believed they were the fulfillment of OT prophecies about the coming of the Messiah? Seems like any good cult (ie small religious group with a charismatic leader) would want to be regarded in that way.
Yes. Judas of Galilee/Gamala, the founder of the Sicarii (and possibly Zealots) was a preacher before he went full militant in his messianic quest. After Jesus, Simon of Samaria (possibly the basis for the character Simon Magus) also developed claims of messiahship for the Samaritan side. In the latter's case he had it easier because being Samaritan he didn't have to tie himself to the Davidic lineage.
For me, it’s not that the message was morphed, I’m an American, I know warped Christianity. For me, it’s that they immediately did it and declared it Holy Writ. Jesus: “Love your-“ Proto-Orthodox Christian: “‘TORMENT THEM DOUBLEFOLD’ SAYETH THE LORD!”
11:37 - 'Jesus never sanctions violence in the gospels' - I wonder how Dr. Ehrman would explain Luke 19:27 then: 'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me' (NIV)
@@beemixsy Firstly, I'm pretty much only interested in Dr' Ehrman's response (not that I'm expecting one) since he made the claim. Secondly, seems to me that the parable was Jesus's way of teaching about God/God's kingdom, and there is violence inherent in this particular teaching Thirdly, I'm not particularly interested in hearing any other interpretations of this parable in regards to its violent symbolism, other than hearing/reading Dr Ehrman's response (whether it is here or in some other source). And while others may offer their own interpretations (as obviously I can't stop anyone from doing so), I am under no obligation to read them or pay any attention to them in any way
@@beemixsy Yes, parables are totally useless for teaching and have no alignment with reality. If Jesus didn't want the ruler in the parable to say that, then Jesus just wouldn't have said it.
I guess this book would have been of comfort to the brutalized Jewish community of the time. I think John of Patmos had issues then ate too much cheese before bedtime.
What I dont get is.. what is jesus revenging for? His died on a cross according to chrstians, he had to die , it was part of the plan, then why is jesus bitter and mad and consider killing jesus himself a sin and some to renvenge for? I think different authors have different thinking about this
I love the podcast but have to disagree with the statement that Jesus is never portrayed as violent in the gospels. See Hector Avalos's "The Bad Jesus" or David Madison's "Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn't Said" for counterpoints to the notion that Jesus was all about peace and love.
Agree. He embraces deferred violence not non violence. Big difference in those two things. Revelation is that deferred violence come to fruition. Hector Avalos was an amazing scholar love his work.
The problem is that you can't accept everything in the Gospels as actual words of the historical Jesus. At least not without having to admit that he suffered from a dissotiative identity disorder. There are statements that just don't go together if you assume they come from one and the same person. And what's more, we can see this process taking place when we go from the oldest gospel further on. The parables and discourses of Jesus are being constantly enhanced, and especially those violent passages are obviously later additions. You can even see how the original structure or even message of the parable is broken to make a violent ending fit.
@@DoloresLehmann I agree that much of what Jesus is claimed to have said is fabricated. However, I'd suggest two points. First, it's very common for Christians to start with an idealized, all-good picture of Jesus (this is the one they've learned all their lives), and then retrofit the Bible to eliminate anything that contradicts that picture. They simply throw out anything that contradicts the "good Jesus" they've come to know and love. This is how cognitive dissonance works. It's also an example of confirmation bias and selective attention. Second, it's not necessary to have DID to make contradictory statements -- for example, one day to say something forgiving, then another day say something condemning. Most people have different ego states or attitudes that come out at different times, depending on mood and context. Inconsistencies or contradictions coming from the mouth of Jesus are only impossible if you assume he was perfect. I don't.
@@Arven8 Both points are very good indeed. Let me share my thoughts on them. To the first: That's one way to see it, and of course, none of us is safe from confirmation bias. Not even scholars. None of us gets to a topic like this as to a blank page. But what can you do if you actually want to know, as far as possible, what the historical Jesus (or any historical figure, for that matter) most probably said and did? The go-to method would be to first figure out what was the most characteristic for this person. In the case of Jesus: What did he say or do that was different from what either contemporary Jews or early Christians would have said or done? From here, you get very easily to the love for enemies, non-dualistic thinking, inclusion of marginalized people and non-apocalyptic teachings. If that's the core, you can assume that everything diametrically opposed to it is a later addition or distortion. Of course, you can't be sure in each and every case, but you have a pretty good hint. There's still the possibility that you wrongly identified the core, but that's a risk you always have when it comes to history. And that blends into the second point: Of course people can make contradictory statements depending on many circumstances, and of course there's no need to assume that Jesus was any different. But those contradictions shouldn't be so radically opposed that they would change the very essence of your personality. If Jesus stated one day that in order to become like God, you should love your enemies, bless those who curse you and do good to those who oppress you, he was saying that this is God's nature. If the next day he said that God is vengeful and would destroy all his enemies mercilessly, he would be painting a radically different picture of God's nature. If he was teaching an anti-apocalyptic message one day and an apocalyptic message the next, he would make himself completely unreliable. Such contradictions would be far greater than just those explicable by "mood or context".
The key word here is portrayed. I think alot of this comes originally from one saying towards the end of the Q source. Its a saying following a story about a vinyard manager, wher the owner returns after a time and has to sort through all the a activities of the workers. Basically kicking out the usuitable workers. In the Q source it appears to be followed by the saying about the "sword of the tongue" that this sword was goung to cut the Jewish family in half. But we should note, this is the sword of the tongue, not a real sword.
Not saying I exactly believe this, but I wonder if the book of Revelation kind of points to the notion of enantiodromia. If the Christian psyche becomes one-sided, having Jesus symbolically fulfill this role of vengeance may actually prevent Christians from actually lashing back. In other words by exporting that function to Jesus , this book MIGHT (I have no idea) actually counterintuitively prevent Christians from snapping due to the abuse and trauma that seems inherent to any group of people taught not to fight back and whose religion grew in the most abusive of cultures - where the rage instinct of slaves was suppressed and would ultimately lead to endless destruction if not displaced. But I have no idea. Just a thought...
Its been awhile since I last heard an interview or talk by you, Bart, and I'm so glad you are addressing this subject, as it is something I've personally brought up to Bible-believers for the past 25 years - the fact that the Jesus of Revelation and the Jesus of the Gospels are completely different characters, and that the God and Christ of Revelation sound like a coupe of murderous cosmic psychopaths. Also, think about this: When the question goes out "who is worthy to open the scroll...and there was none found worthy but the lamb...(etc)", that would mean that he that sat upon the throne - God - was not found worthy to open the scroll, if none was worthy but the lamb. Just another thought. Keep up the great work!
Side note, I've been trying to tell people for about the last 20 yrs myself that the Old Testament God and the New Testament aren't even the same God. No fundamentalist wants to hear it though.
Posting as Deb Fisher- if you accept the Trinity, the lamb (Jesus) and god (the father) are the same, so if only the lamb is worthy, this means that both his essence as god ( the father) and Jesus ( the lamb) are the same entity.
@@mattr.1887 Several early sects of followers had that same belief. I believe it was Marcion that led one group which believed Jesus was not from the God of the Old Testament.
In Revelation, there are 13 calls to write across seven enumerated cities - just as there are 13 writings of Paul in the NT across seven enumerated cities. Revelation mimics Paul's standard openings and closings from his letters and quotes phrases unique to Paul like the "Book of Life" and "King of Kings." On its face, John mimics Paul's "Revelation of Jesus Christ" from Galatians 1:11-12. Are these mere coincidences? I don't think so. Revelation is an exegetical masterpiece that calls readers to discern between "John" vs "I, John," "Jesus" vs "I, Jesus" - Elohim, the image of the creator God in Genesis vs Yahweh Tseba'oth, the God of Armies. If you read Revelation carefully, it teaches us how to discern between prophets and false prophets, messiah's and false messiahs, the God of heaven and the gods of the earth (human misperceptions of God - not necessarily another God). Frankly, I don't think the NT would make sense without Revelation nor do I think we could understand the history of the Word in Judeo-Christian history - the whole of Biblical scripture - without it. To cast the Book of Revelation in such a negative light without truly understanding or explaining it is a disservice in my opinion...
Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21, 14:1 refer to Jesus as "son of the Father". Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the Father". Gustav Volkmar in 1857 said Mark's Gospel was a parable for Paul and Paul's Gospel and was written to counter the "gospel" of the Book of Revelation. It stands to reason then the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation would feature as an insurrectionist and murderer in Mark's Gospel (Luz: Paul's and Mark's theologia crucis vs. Revelation's theologia gloriae). It is probably the case the Book of Revelation we have now is not exactly the same as the one that was available to Mark in 73AD. There may have been an Ur-Revelation. See Dr. James Tabor's excellent blogs on this. So if Mark's Jesus Christ is not the historical Jesus, and Revelation's Jesus Barabbas is not the historical Jesus, then who was the historical Jesus?
christ is war ...thats why he is the prince of peace ... peace is just an aspect of war and thus his other cheek. the lamb and the 144 thousand, thats the number of a roman legion. he is the lamb ares who guards the gates of hell. son of joseph is war, he holds the (silver) key to the resurrection
And look what happened. The Roman empire collapsed, Europe Christianized and European nations went on to colonize the planet and spread Christianity even further. Eventually becoming the most powerful nations in history.
What if Parthia had been a province of Rome do you think a Saoshyant like Jesus figure could have emerged and a offshoot of Zoroastrianism could have taken off in the Rome Empire just like Christianity did in are timeline.
So where does bart get the thing about jezabel being raped as a punishment, I checked out the verses and all it says is "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering".
The naked man running away in a cloth at His arrest is counter balanced by finding no naked Jesus but his pile of cloths at the empty tomb. God's reality runs off a trinary operating system that Yahshua and Moses were aware of. It is called in English "the Similitude". Ex 25:40, tabynth. The Logos Jn 1:1, wasn't a person like Sopia wasn't a person. The Logos is the program language which runs on the equivalence of morals and ethics in a trinay format.
One part of Jesus is warlike, like the Caesars, he has same initials of Julius. The more predominant pacifist part is a Buddha figure with two apostles, Simon Peter and Saul/Paul having the same initials as Sari Putra, chief disciple of Buddha. Buddhism had been brought to Alexandria, Egypt by Greek-speaking missionaries in the 3rd century BCE, where Buddhist manuscripts in Pali and Sanskrit were translated into Greek. So the Gospel writers, probably writing in Alexandria, were probably familiar with those Asian scriptures.
@@Mrpersonman0 I'm NOT trying to ignore or replace a "historical Jesus"! I'm not very concerned with whether Jesus was either mythical or historical, although it seems like, if he was historical, his life was heavily embellished. I've just noticed similarities that are significant to me in the stories about and initials of the Gospel Jesus to Julius Caesar and the initials of Jesus's two most prominent apostles and Buddha's chief disciple. The slash mark between Saul and Paul is obviously not from the Bible, i used it because those names were only used separately, not together -- in the book of Acts he was first called "Saul", then he started being called "Paul", with no explanation, which seems odd. There are several UA-cam videos worth watching, if you haven't already seen them, such as Jesus was Caesar/ Did the Romans Invent Jesus Christ? with James S. Valiant on a MythVision podcast. Also Valliant's website, CreatingChrist.com. Also a book and video, Caesars Messiah by Joseph Atwill, about the parallels between the Gospel Jesus and the Flavian Caesars. There are several videos exploring and disputing, or agreeing, with alleged similarities of Jesus to Buddha --one by "Inspiring Philosophy" claims that Buddha's life story may have been altered to resemble that of Gospel Jesus, and NOT vice versa. Other interesting videos are Jesus was a Buddhist Monk, a BBC documentary, and another, Definitive Proof Jesus of Nazareth was a Buddhist Monk. There are other books dealing in greater depth with the Jesus-Caesar and Jesus-Buddha story parallels that i would love to read but either cannot borrow from my local library or other libraries or else can't afford to buy!
@@deewesthill1213 Buddhism had spread and institutionalized well before it even knew of Christianity, and Christianity certainly makes historical note of Buddhism before it has gained any significant traction.
@@deewesthill1213 also yeah there is a long history of ahistorical claims about Jesus as a Buddha which while interesting have not been substantiated by the majority or even any significant minority of scholars in the last 100 years. There was some awareness of Buddhism in the early development of the Christian church but jesus as a figure very clearly emerges coherently in Christianity from the confluence of apocalyptic Judaism and Greco Roman cultural and philosophical trends - the latter of which have some connection potentially to Greco Buddhism historically, but nowhere near enough to cause us to look for zebras when we already have the horses
@@deewesthill1213 it’s not that it’s wrong perse to understand Jesus as a figure emerging in the broader cultural context of the Caesars, or even the much more limited reach of Greco Buddhism, but it ignores both the innovations of Christians of the time and the bigger fish that is apocalyptic Judaism and the innovations that were needed to bring Jesus as a figure out of that tradition and into the broader Greco Roman world
The story of the Pacifistic Lamb Christ that preached inaction and submission could be - is - a version of Jesus created after Jesus's death to placate Roman authorities that would otherwise view Christians as members of a insurrection. Explains why Jesus is so submissive as to walk to his own death rather than run. A more reasonable depiction would be a violent revolutionary and would-be Messiah who was dragged in to face charges while his followers ran and hid. Afterwards, the few who kept going, his brother and others, changed the story to a murder by malicious Jews, excusing the Romans - all to avoid being crucified for being Jesusites. After Paul's takeover of the churches, more or less, the new story was set in stone.
I don’t think this is true at all, 1) Roman authorities aren’t reading Christian texts, 2) Jesus in Mark says “why are you forsaken me”, he thought his Father would save him and he didn’t. Even if these weren’t his exact words, the essence, his confusion and despair certainly likely convey how he felt.
@@HahaDamn The gospels aren't facts. Not for historical purposes, anyway. In Mark he laments, in John he's a stoic literal demi-god. So any monologue is not useable. They are fiction. He can' t be both. As for the violent nature of his group - why was Peter carrying a sword for Passover in the city? He USED it, per the story, to cut off a slave's ear in rage. That was not a thing you did as a peaceful attendee. I think the writer slipped up and left in a story that clarified the purpose of the Jesusites in Jerusalem that week. They were there for a ruckus.
@@HahaDamn This particular quote is an interpolation from the Old Testament (Psalm 22). It is not a reliable Jesus tradition. Also, Romans definitely read Christian texts once they became available. That's how Justin the Philosopher ended up becoming Justin Martyr, after all.
25:00 "Why this violent imagery?" -- If it is granted, as Dr. Ehrman grants, that the imagery is not to be taken literally, isn't this just another way of asking. "Why does Jesus, in Revelation 2, seem so upset that 'Jezebel' is teaching people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, i.e., to false gods?" Is it really a question why the true God (the have-no-other-gods-before-me God) does not want us to waste our lives devoted to false gods?
If you grant that the imagery is symbolic, surely you must then also understand that that imagery is chosen to symbolise something specific. It is not chosen at random. The imagery is violent because the underlying message is violent. And are you really saying that because she allegedly worshiped 'false' gods it is entirely justified to then suggest her violent gang rape and the subsequent murder of her children? Aren't you ashamed to be publicly defending such gross misogyny and horrific violence in the year 2023? Seek help.
If someone doesn't believe in any god/s, how is that not a statement: They believe, "No gods exist." Which needs to be proven unless they know everything??? Acting as though a guess is true seems very ignorant?
11:20 - The "We have here two swords" episode in Luke 22:36-38 involves the need (or desire) to fulfill a prophecy that the Messiah would be counted among the lawless. I.e., there needed to be some sort of pretext to arrest Jesus and get the ball rolling for his trials. When Dr. Ehrman says that Jesus is "just the opposite" in Revelation, this should be understood in light of Christ's opposite missions (as depicted in the New Testament) during his Incarnation (to save His people from their sins) and at his second coming (to bring Judgment Day). Jesus is depicted as a person who acts differently depending on His mission; he is not two different people, any more than a shepherd who feeds his flock on Monday, and fights off the wolves on Tuesday.
20:32 - A moment. Granting that Jesus did not endorse the Name-It-And-Claim-It nonsense that is preached by some "televangelists," Jesus did not tell everyone everywhere to go and sell everything they have. Context matters, as I am sure Dr. Ehrman knows.
Revelation and Hell is the afterbirth of the New Earth. The blood, guts and suffering left over from the birth. It's often thought of as justice however it just is. Ultimate God or whomever has control over the unfolding of the apocalypse does not have sympathy like we can imagine as a man may. The whole world was set up as a means of processing and refining souls. When the maker of the world says it's over, so it is. There are beasts of burden that will bear the load, Satan, demons and the others unrefined.
Kolbrin Bible master edition Manuscripts 33.5 Four times the stars have moved to new positions and twice the sun has changed direction of his journey. Twice the Destroyer has struck Earth and three times the heavens have opened and shut. Twice the land has been swept clean by water. The Destroyer is due to cross Earth's path again ... Jeremiah 25.32 and 48.8 Disasters will soon spread from nation to nation. They will come like a powerful storm to all the faraway places on earth... the Destroyer will come against every town, not one town will escape... the Lord said this will happen." Manuscripts 3.4 When blood ( red ash ) drops apon the Earth, the Destroyer will appear and mountains will open up and belch forth fire and ashes ( volcano eruption ). Trees will be destroyed and all living things engulfed. Waters will be swallowed up by the land and seas will boil. Manuscripts 3.6 The people will scatter in madness. They will hear the TRUMPET and battlecry of the Destroyer and will seek refuge within dens in the earth ( bunkers ). Terror will eat away their hearts and their courage will flow from them like water from a broken pitcher. They will be eaten up in the flames of wrath and consumed by the breath of the Destroyer. Manuscripts 3.7 Men will fly in the air as birds and swim in the seas as fishes, Men will talk peace one with another, hypocrisy and deceit shall have their day. Women will be as men and men as women, passion will be a plaything of man. Manuscripts 3.9 Then men will be ill at ease in their hearts, they will seek they know not what, and uncertainty and doubt will trouble them. They will possess great riches but be poor in spirit. Then will the Heavens tremble and the Earth move, men will quake in fear and while terror walks with them the Heralds of Doom will appear. They will come softly, as thieves to the tombs, men will not know them for what they are, men will be decieved, the hour of the Destroyer is at hand. 1 Thessalonians 5:4-6 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. Manuscripts 3.10 In those days, men will have the Great Book ( kolbrin bible ) before them, wisdom will be revealed; the few will be gathered for the stand; it is the hour of trial. The dauntless ones will survive; the stouthearted will not go down to destruction. Manuscripts 3.1 Men forget the days of the Destroyer. Only the Wise know where it went and that it will return in its appointed hour. Mark 13:32-36 King James Version 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. 34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. 35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. Revelation 12.1-9 " And then a great wonder appeared in the heaven: There was a women who was clothed with the sun. The moon was ( positioned ) under her feet. She ( our dark sister ) had a crown of 12 stars on her head ( 12 escorts orbiting her celestial body ) . Then another wonder appeared in heaven: There was a giant ( celestial ) Red dragon ... the tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and threw them down to earth ( meteorite shower ). ( The giant dragon is that old snake from the beginning, with its red meandering comet-like serpentine tail, called the devil ) Prophet Elidors warning... Silver Bought 7.18 I am the prophet to tell men of the frightener/ Destroyer, there are many generations that will pass before it appears. It will be a thing of monstrous greatness arising in the form of a crab.... It's body will be red... It will spread destruction across the Earth, running from Sunrise to sunset. It will come in the days of decision, when men are inflicted with spiritual blindness, when one ignorance has been replaced with another, when men walk in darkness and call it light. In those days, men will yearn after pleasure and comfort, they will go down roads of ease, encouraged by women incapable of inspiring them towards the upward path. Silver Bough 7.19 There will be disbelief in spiritual things, but this will proceed from ignorance, it will be a thing of the lips, for disbelief is not in the heart and nature of man. No matter how much a man cries out his disbelief, in times of turmoil, in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, when frightened by the unknown, he turns to spiritual things for comfort and strength. Silver Bough 7.20 In the days of the great conflict, do not pray.lthat The Supreme Spirit be on your side, this would be a futile waste of time. Pray rather that you be on the right side, the side of The Supreme Spirit. Silver Bough 7.21 Hear my voice, for I tell of things to come. There will be no great signs heralding the coming of the frightener/The Destroyer, it will come when men are least prepared. It will come when they seek only worldly things. In those days men will be falling away from manliness and women from womanliness. It will be a time of confusion and chaos. Silver Bough 7. 22 I have warned of the frightener/The Destroyer, I have done what I am charged to do....
Here is a hypothesis: What if Revelation was written during Nero (666) and after the burning of Rome? Then Mark was written after Revelation. It would almost be a polemic to those like the Pauline Christian converts that are "waiting for the wrath to come." Mark was showing that the violent Son of Man sects didn't get it. If Revelation was authored by John son of Zebedee(not written by, but authored) wouldn't it fit his nickname "son of thunder?"
There are statements in Mark that show that Mark did think Jesus taught of future wrath/judgement from God towards the unrepentant. Mark 9:43, Mark 12:9
I think the imagery is just plain sadistic. And you have to be sadistic to dream up this imagery. I don’t think Revelation is as much about Jesus as it is about the person who wrote it. We can see the appeal that sadistic imagery has to the authoritarian personalities in our present day culture.
So much for Jesus teaching believers to forgive their enemies.
Well he does. He teaches a ton of contradictory stuff. You can kind of support whatever position you want with jesus quotes.
77goanywhere, well, John of Patmos wasn't Jesus! John of Patmos wrote his own revenge fantasy - probably because he was stuck on Patmos against his will. His writings have nothing whatsoever to do with what Jesus might've taught originally. Not that we know for sure what exactly Jesus preached originally. But as a Jewish teacher who believed that the apocalypse was near and who probably also believed that he was the true Jewish messiah, he must've expected a certain amount of violence to unfold in the near future, even if he himself didn't see himself as a warrior.
You can say that again!!!!! Thanks for saying!!!!!
Thanks much for this. I'm no scholar, but I have read the book of Revelation, and unless one is a believer who is accustomed to a lot of pretzely explanations, it's pretty clear what it is: revenge porn.
Seemingly! He throws Jezebel on a bed, rapes her, then (waits around 9 months or goes away and comes back) and kills THEIR children, NOT an abortion: He waits till after they're born to make it more murderously acceptable to his followers. It's All True cuz it's The Inerrant Word of God, don't like it?? Take it up with Mr John Patmos, 666th cave on the right, Looney Tunes Insane Asylum, Your town, USA.
That's probably the best two-word description of Revelation I've ever heard.
NT Jesus believes in deferred violence not non violence. He says: villages that don’t accept his disciples will be obliterated…I came not to bring peace but a sword….bring my enemies here and slay them before me (I asked Bart about this verse on his blog and he agreed NT Jesus is referring to himself at the end of this parable when he says this). Revelation is simply this deferred violence come to fruition. For more see The Bad Jesus by Hector Avalos.
Well said. It's clear every New Testament author believed this as well. Peace and prosperity is the goal, however if shunned, assured judgement/destruction/retribution is promised instead
Yes, it surprises me that Bart seems to not be noticing this, or perhaps is choosing not to emphasize it. It seems a very natural connection to his work on Jesus' apocalyptic message which says eventually God will have vengeance.
@@SeekingVirtueA Yes, here I think it’s the later - choosing not to emphasize it here. He does talk more freely on his blog when asked specific questions or even in some iviews I’ve heard him do. But when creating content aimed at a wider audience is sometimes (not always) more careful to drive between the white lines and appeal to the widest audience possible without alienating anyone.
After the flood, God put his warning in the sky. Remember how I killed all you bastards before. I'll do it again! Just not by water!
Jesus clearly said after their death, Lazarus was in comfort while rich man was dying of thirst but can't die. That is worst than locust from hell for only 6 months. Jesus said men will ask mountains to fall on them because of fear.
Jesus is not a pacifist. Rather, He is a dynamic teacher that pulls together polar opposites. He hang out with prostitutes and sinners, and tell them to be sinless. He tells Pharisee who are sinless religious leaders their father is the devil. Then he tells ordinary people you have to be even more sinless than Pharisee to get to heaven. He was beat and slapped across the face, then tells these same people he was the Messiah they have been waiting for all this time. He was at the mercy of powerful Roman ruler, and tells the ruler God gave him his power. Then of the absolute worst of worst sinner, the guy next to Him on the cross, that was the only person Jesus ever gave the promise he will go to heaven. You can't pick a worst guy to give that promise. Jesus's actions have many polar opposites.
Not surprising, He tells of God's great love and great punishment.
Bart Ehrman knows all this already. Jesus is not a one dimension weed smoking hippie pacifist.
We have to look for the truth. If someone mis-represent what they already know, that is not honesty. Run, don't stay and be misled.
I don't think Jesus was a pacifist in the gospels. For instance, he says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34). Also, there is his judgment on unrepentant towns in Matt. 11:20-24. So, the contrast between Jesus of the gospels and Jesus in Revelation is not as clear as Dr. Ehrman states.
Agreed...and there are other examples as well. Its clear that NT Jesus believes in deferred violence not non violence. Big difference. Revelation is this deferred violence come to fruition. For more see: The Bad Jesus The Ethics of NT Ethics by Dr. Hector Avalos
Agreed! They are not representing the Jesus of the gospels well. Jesus prophesied about the future judgment he would bring.
The sword could be metaphor for change, not actual violence.
Angry John treats the Christ figure as a failure. A failure bent on taking vengeance for his shortcomings. It's not a revenge fantasy because people did not choose to follow him, or that could have been made explicit at least once. The concept of a failed messiah is a central theme in Jewish theology (e.g. Shabbetai Tzvi is a well-documented example). If John of Patmos was raised in a Jewish apocalyptic milieu, combining the notion of a cursed messiah with apocalyptic imagery is not that surprising. There are failed messiahs, and then there is what Jesus did. It is a whole other level of failure to be cursed like that. If people ignore the Jewish context for the Jesus event, interpretations will lack the context required for accurate understanding. I think Paul's mission was, among other evils, to obfuscate the Jewishness of the Jesus event.
I think the revelation probably did so much more to promote Christianity than the gospels could on their own. It's all fine and well to "love your enemies", but many philosophers said that same thing throughout history and it's never been a huge best seller. But sprinkle in "because God's going to crush your enemies for you, better than you ever could by yourself" to the pot and you've got yourself a stew.
Justice requires mercy. He allows people to be tortured by judgment in hopes that people will turn to him and receive eternal salvation.
Better question is why Revelations was includedin the Bible in the first place. The leaders of the churches would have known that it was about Caesar. And that very few people would understand that. They may as well have included Enoch at least doing so would be less dishonest
I absolutely agree. It is Lord of the Rings plus Harry Potter plus Alice in Wonderland. What is it doing in the Canon?
Could you guys please talk about the Zoroastrian influence on the development of the New Testament.
I second that. Let's get this comment to the top!!!
20:00 - Christ "gets revenge" not for His own death (which he asked the Father to forgive) but for the persecution of the saints and martyrs. On a larger scale, God's wrath targets everyone who commits sin and does not repent. Which I would hope is one reason (not the only one, or the best one) to avoid not repenting.
Thank you so much for posing this question. Your answer importantly confirms the growing impression that I have had that indeed the Christ of Revelation is not the same as the Christ of the 4 Gospels. I am disturbed by this growing impression and your answer helps me to take appropriate action to protect myself from what is properly perceived as repulsive and unacceptable behavior and character of Christ. This is a terrible realization to be in.
Shedding light on Christianity. Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
I don't see the Jesus of the gospels as consistently pacifist. He is ever ready with threats of a horror to come, e.g. Mark 9:47-48: ...it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Ge·hen´na, 48 where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out. ..
Yeah, he has totally mischaracterized Jesus's full message in the gospels. Paul and the other apostles also speak of the coming judgment of God through his Christ.
We read into Jesus being non-violent - but for what happened to him - dosn’t that require an insurrectionist - someone believing that God’s intervention would be violent, exonerating Jesus and his followers of violence - while celebrating violence on the ruling state - jesus gets it both ways - nonviolent messiah and the beneficiary of God’s violence that alters and realigns history
What do you really mean?
Well said
An excellent discussion drawing on our age's understanding of the projection of our unseen inner conflicts upon Christ as an idealized image. Not only does this change with time, place, and cultural values but anyone who is honest with themself knows our unconscious shadows assert their effect at inconvenient times. Their strength is proportional to how much we suppress our negative feelings in trying to live up to our conscious ideal seen in Jesus. The writer of Revelation must have been extremely devoted to living up to "loving his enemies" and "turning the other cheek" and therefor suppressed those natural reactions that in later life demanded compensation by being expressed in his vengeful words
That second question was wild
Jessica Rabbit in "Who Shot Roger Rabbit" said "I not bad, they just drew me this way".
Jesus might say, "I'm not bloodthirsty, humans just invented me this way."
The funniest part is that an ad popped up in the middle of this video that shows a scene from The Chosen where Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman at the well in Sychar.
Love the intro & outlook music. 😊
I always want these episodes to be longer because the information provided is fascinatingly enlightening. This show motivates me to study these topics more in depth & research the related academic literature as much as I can. Thank you Prof. BART EHRMAN & Dr. Megan Lewis !!
ua-cam.com/users/livefYHHJAYGwoQ?feature=share
Muratorian Fragments prove you wrong Dr. Erhman !
Revenge is best served bloody. Especially if one is a god.
I'm speculating because I know nothing about this subject but, on the issue of the violence in Revelation, could it be that John of Patmos is a Jew who continues to believe in the jealous and vengeful God of the Old Testament??
If Jesus was a apocalypticist then he knew the violence that was about to be wrought upon the Earth, which he thought was going to be not long after his death. If he was going to be alongside his Father when this was occurring then the teaching of peace whilst he was alive was to just try and save a few more poor souls before Judgement Day arrived.
"Cruelty well used" Do not do unto to others what they have done unto you! An eye for an eye?
Wouldn't you be (out to get even) after getting nailed to a cross?
Why is the thousand year reign only mentioned in the book of Revelation & not in the gospels or the rest of the New Testament?
Marcus Borg (and others) suggested aligning the New Testament in chronological order to better see how the many narratives about Jesus evolved over time. Of course determining the dates for each book is a bit speculative but there is some consensus among historical scholars as to the general order. Revelation (according to many) was written in the mid nineties - four decades after the authentic Pauline letters and over two decades after the destruction of the Temple and the earliest gospel (Mark). Not sure if there was some previous notion of a thousand year reign in other (non canonical) writings of the time but from reading some of the Apocryphal documents you can see plenty of new (and weird) narratives that developed over time.
The thousand Year reign may be alluded to in 2nd Peter chapter 3 when he talks about the soon coming day of the Lord.
@@williambrewer True but most scholars date Second Peter well after Revelation - probably written between 120-150 CE.
@@stevearmstrong6758 and what evidence do they have for that claim? If you watch any videos on the subject, you'll see that the scholarly opinions are totally speculation with regards to that subject.
@@stevearmstrong6758 You should see what Kenneth Gentry has to say about the book of Revelation. It was written prior to 70 AD and was for telling the destruction of the temple and Jewish polity (code named Babylon the Great).
Jesus didn't promote violence?
Luke 22:36
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Jesus clearly said at Matthew 26:52: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."
Jesus was teaching a lesson at Luke 22:36 that they should not resort to violence, even when confronted by an armed crowd. Peter took the ear off the high priest's slave, so Jesus said what he did at Matthew 26:52.
I like how in John of Patmos' dream, he has God looking through a scroll.
Really pins 📌 The Lord (who is meant to be God Always, Timeless) in that time. If John had that dream in 1965, it would have been a book. 2023, probably God would be using an iPad.
Seems to me that the guys who decided to package the Bible, would have done well to leave out John of Patmos meanderings, nightmares and delusions (drugs?). Surely they could have scratched up some other scroll or have another 'anonymous' write one?
Yes, that’s how it always seemed to me as well. The most disturbing thing about Revelation is not Revelation itself-there are and presumably have always been bloodthirsty ranting maniacs-but that it is included in the Bible, that it is approved of and exalted.
Idk. If I'm going to end the world my plans are going to be sealed with wax in a scroll. Its less threatening to picture a deity in a black turtleneck threatening to unleash douchebags on the earth via an iPad. Besides, Apple already did that apocalypse.
Surely this is a response to Nero's persecution? The author, enraged at seeing Christians set alight, envisages a warrior Christ, not unlike the God of Isaiah, who came with his garments splattered with blood?
The real historical Jesus was most likely a doomsday prophet/preacher, and as we all know those types of characters can be pretty doom and gloom, so...I'm pretty sure he talked a lot about the violent things that would happen to the "enemies of God."
I agree totally. He didn't fulfill not even one of the demands of the stipulated messianic prophesies. Thank you Dr. Ehrman
The real historical Jesus was most likely a carpenter
The real Jesus, like several 1st century rabbis, was a travelling miracle worker, in particular he seems to have specialised in exorcism. Without the movement that developed after his execution that is likely how he would have been remembered.
It’s hard to connect the pre Easter Jesus with the Jesus portrayed in Revelation. The Jesus portrayed in Revelation was the super warrior that the Jews were hoping for - one who would defeat Rome and restore the Kingdom. But that was far different than the Jesus who preached love and repentance. It seems clear that the Jesus of Revelation- and of the other later writings - was an evolution of the narrative that had begun during hs life but clearly took on mythical proportions over time.
“Those types”? If Jesus were merely another of “those types”, he wouldn’t have been worth remembering. Gandhi was not merely one of “a type”, and neither was Socrates, Buddha, or Jesus,
Luke 19:27 New International VersionBut those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
Out of context
@@atydedominika3058 Hahaha, what a classic Christian meme
Vengeance is Mine says the Lord!!!
Amen! This seems absurd to say that Jesus didn't prophesy in the gospels that he was going to come avenge! Paul and the other apostles also speak of Christ's vengeance.
So why the sermon on the mount? Which God should we believe in? The God who takes cruel vengeance on his enemies or the God who forgives them and does good to them?
@@77goanywhere both aspects are present in this parable showing that Jesus saw no inconsistency here. Notice he talks about forgiving and then talks about tormenting.
Mat 18:33-35 WTB 33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
If we respond appropriately to the grace of God, we will receive mercy. If we harden ourself against him, he will repay with wrath. This is nothing new. This was God's character from the beginning.
Exo 20:5-6 NHEB 5 you must not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth [generation] of those who hate me, 6 and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Yshweh is NOT JESUS'S FATHER.
33:29 It’s Paul’s handwriting (“see what large letters I write”) or something like that.
How about if we just dump Revelations. After all it was the last book to be added.
Genuine questions: Does it really make sense to believers that Jesus, a man/god whose profile is infamously that of a being of peace, mercy and forgiveness, will have all those attitudes magically reverse themselves on his return? In fact, since Jews expected a "warrior king" the first time, and your religion says they got it wrong...isn't it also possible that Christian predictions of his returning to wreck up the place are *equally* wrong (Christ returns to find his followers have made the same mistake the Jews did, and wondering, "Where is everyone getting this idea from??")? Lastly, and most importantly, if YOU are a follower, and become convinced that some warlord IS the returned Messiah as he claims...would you put aside your belief in peace and unity and start killing entire populations because He commanded you to?
Equally wrong how?Jews think of Christ coming to rule with them over the roman empire and so on ,and what about sin?Seems to me that Theologically they have contradicted Gods Nature to suit theirs when none of the prophecies even say anything about Rome.
None of those attitudes will be reversed if moral judgement is being dealt.
People speak of Wrath murder when referring to innocents
but don't speak about death penalty or punishment when given to those suspects or criminals.
The double standard doesn't seem to apply when humans use the permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Where does Jesus say that We humans will kill entire populations?
6:50 Yes, Jesus advocates nonviolence so that God can be the avenger. We see Jesus Christ, the son of God being the avenger of the Covenant in Revelation.
Is this connected to the dream like states of Dr Jung? I am Cdn and so my comprehension is limited by intense cold.
After watching the excellent Mark course I want to know - does Bart require all hosts of his programs to have blue hair?
I don't understand how someone can say that Jesus is the lamb in this book, he's out for blood, turning water to blood, inflicting flying locusts on people stinging folks, allowing s0ic1de but not dying as the pain is intolerable, and killing 1/3 of the Earth whenever the frell he feels like it
Yeah, what a loving god toward creation. This I think is the elevation and upping the ante on Rome to the final showdown. It had to end spectacularly with an enemy that would deceive the world
Also, what was the concept of the world back then? How could someone "all over the world" see something (referring to the two witnesses at the wall) I've always wondered about that piece
I love that room Dr. Ehrman is in... beautiful!
Why is Revelations even in the Bible? Oh ya, hell fire damnation. Violence porn was just as popular then as it is now.
The book of revelations sounds like a bad trip. Does anyone take it seriously? I mean seriously, literally.
In Mark 1:2-3 of the KJV, it says "As it is written in the prophets..." "Prophets" is pluralized because what is written after that is a combination of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. Yes, other bible versions incorrectly just say "...as it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." Mark then indicates that the messenger is John the Baptist. Could the messenger actually be Jesus instead? Jesus did spend 40 days in the wilderness after being baptized by John.
19;22 - Dr. Ehrman's description of Mark's theme, so far, is spot-on.
God has been sending missionaries for two millenia and people still ain't hearing. Jesus even explained this in his parable where he talks about the owner of the vineyard sending his servants and then he even sent his Son, and what did they do to the son. There comes a point where there have been enough messengers and vengeance is all that is understood.
This was a really great one. I don't know exactly why, but it all seems really smooth and fun. Unfortunately... the subjects always strikes me as disturbing. Somehow, somewhere, someone always seems to say, "you know, we really need to torture people, because things aren't going they way they should."
I suspect torture works better than Bart's suggested "God will send down a teacher to convince them not to be evil", since it's only a description of the future, not something God's actually doing in the present. Fear of punishment works better than the promise that someone will someday come to explain the right way to do things.
Bart Ehrman, as he acknowledges, is going against the scholarly consensus in claiming that Revelation teaches that God/Christ uses violence to solve problems. Ehrman is a _textual_ scholar; that's his expertise. He is _not_ an exegete _per se_ . There are much better scholars of the Book of Revelation, such as Caird and Bauckham. His argument is based on assumptions. The text tells us that the Lion of Judah became a slaughtered lamb, not vice versa. You would have though the the lamb would have become a lion if Ehrman's interpretation were correct.
" I have come not to bring peace but a sword:" said Jesus
What led me to question the Bible growing up was arguments with other Christians over how non-violent Jesus was. I saw more of the "turn the other cheek" Jesus where some others saw more of the "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" Jesus. This contradiction led me to questioning the Bible more and about what it may really say. Eventually, for numerous reasons, I could no longer accept the Bible and little later Christianity.
The mistake you made then and the mistake you continue to make now is to assume the Bible is monolithic. If you’re going to reject the Bible, at least reject it on its own terms.
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's not like I didn't find some way of explaining it away, and after this incident I actually became more of a zealot, but the seeds of questioning the Bible had been planted none-the-less. Like I said, for numerous reasons I could no longer accept the Bible. It's not like my belief was entirely destroyed by one seeming contradiction.
If I was God hell would only last until the spirit realizes the truth, which will never take an eternity... being almighty I could probably show anyone how it is better to love God without the need for any hell.
It’s “if I WERE God”, subjunctive mood.
Hmm until you realise the spirit is from God.
Maybe someone on the thread knows: were there OTHER preachers at the time whose followers believed they were the fulfillment of OT prophecies about the coming of the Messiah? Seems like any good cult (ie small religious group with a charismatic leader) would want to be regarded in that way.
Yes. Judas of Galilee/Gamala, the founder of the Sicarii (and possibly Zealots) was a preacher before he went full militant in his messianic quest. After Jesus, Simon of Samaria (possibly the basis for the character Simon Magus) also developed claims of messiahship for the Samaritan side. In the latter's case he had it easier because being Samaritan he didn't have to tie himself to the Davidic lineage.
For me, it’s not that the message was morphed, I’m an American, I know warped Christianity.
For me, it’s that they immediately did it and declared it Holy Writ.
Jesus: “Love your-“
Proto-Orthodox Christian: “‘TORMENT THEM DOUBLEFOLD’ SAYETH THE LORD!”
These two together are a perfect!
Good morning Smurfette. Enjoyed the interview.
Sounds like the Islamic idea that The Prophet did not advocate a jihad of violence.
Re: the question about Circumsion: Paul was just writing in ALL CAPS.
11:37 - 'Jesus never sanctions violence in the gospels' - I wonder how Dr. Ehrman would explain Luke 19:27 then: 'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me' (NIV)
@@beemixsy Firstly, I'm pretty much only interested in Dr' Ehrman's response (not that I'm expecting one) since he made the claim.
Secondly, seems to me that the parable was Jesus's way of teaching about God/God's kingdom, and there is violence inherent in this particular teaching
Thirdly, I'm not particularly interested in hearing any other interpretations of this parable in regards to its violent symbolism, other than hearing/reading Dr Ehrman's response (whether it is here or in some other source).
And while others may offer their own interpretations (as obviously I can't stop anyone from doing so), I am under no obligation to read them or pay any attention to them in any way
@@beemixsy Yes, parables are totally useless for teaching and have no alignment with reality.
If Jesus didn't want the ruler in the parable to say that, then Jesus just wouldn't have said it.
I guess this book would have been of comfort to the brutalized Jewish community of the time.
I think John of Patmos had issues then ate too much cheese before bedtime.
Thanks for this! I have a question: is there a plan for your books to be translated and come out in German?
Greetings from Germany
What I dont get is.. what is jesus revenging for? His died on a cross according to chrstians, he had to die , it was part of the plan, then why is jesus bitter and mad and consider killing jesus himself a sin and some to renvenge for? I think different authors have different thinking about this
No but the YE'SH'U' is.
Jesus-God--Bipolar madness
I love the podcast but have to disagree with the statement that Jesus is never portrayed as violent in the gospels. See Hector Avalos's "The Bad Jesus" or David Madison's "Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn't Said" for counterpoints to the notion that Jesus was all about peace and love.
Agree. He embraces deferred violence not non violence. Big difference in those two things. Revelation is that deferred violence come to fruition. Hector Avalos was an amazing scholar love his work.
The problem is that you can't accept everything in the Gospels as actual words of the historical Jesus. At least not without having to admit that he suffered from a dissotiative identity disorder. There are statements that just don't go together if you assume they come from one and the same person.
And what's more, we can see this process taking place when we go from the oldest gospel further on. The parables and discourses of Jesus are being constantly enhanced, and especially those violent passages are obviously later additions. You can even see how the original structure or even message of the parable is broken to make a violent ending fit.
@@DoloresLehmann I agree that much of what Jesus is claimed to have said is fabricated. However, I'd suggest two points.
First, it's very common for Christians to start with an idealized, all-good picture of Jesus (this is the one they've learned all their lives), and then retrofit the Bible to eliminate anything that contradicts that picture. They simply throw out anything that contradicts the "good Jesus" they've come to know and love. This is how cognitive dissonance works. It's also an example of confirmation bias and selective attention.
Second, it's not necessary to have DID to make contradictory statements -- for example, one day to say something forgiving, then another day say something condemning. Most people have different ego states or attitudes that come out at different times, depending on mood and context. Inconsistencies or contradictions coming from the mouth of Jesus are only impossible if you assume he was perfect. I don't.
@@Arven8 Both points are very good indeed. Let me share my thoughts on them.
To the first: That's one way to see it, and of course, none of us is safe from confirmation bias. Not even scholars. None of us gets to a topic like this as to a blank page.
But what can you do if you actually want to know, as far as possible, what the historical Jesus (or any historical figure, for that matter) most probably said and did? The go-to method would be to first figure out what was the most characteristic for this person. In the case of Jesus: What did he say or do that was different from what either contemporary Jews or early Christians would have said or done? From here, you get very easily to the love for enemies, non-dualistic thinking, inclusion of marginalized people and non-apocalyptic teachings. If that's the core, you can assume that everything diametrically opposed to it is a later addition or distortion. Of course, you can't be sure in each and every case, but you have a pretty good hint. There's still the possibility that you wrongly identified the core, but that's a risk you always have when it comes to history.
And that blends into the second point: Of course people can make contradictory statements depending on many circumstances, and of course there's no need to assume that Jesus was any different. But those contradictions shouldn't be so radically opposed that they would change the very essence of your personality.
If Jesus stated one day that in order to become like God, you should love your enemies, bless those who curse you and do good to those who oppress you, he was saying that this is God's nature. If the next day he said that God is vengeful and would destroy all his enemies mercilessly, he would be painting a radically different picture of God's nature. If he was teaching an anti-apocalyptic message one day and an apocalyptic message the next, he would make himself completely unreliable. Such contradictions would be far greater than just those explicable by "mood or context".
The key word here is portrayed. I think alot of this comes originally from one saying towards the end of the Q source.
Its a saying following a story about a vinyard manager, wher the owner returns after a time and has to sort through all the a activities of the workers. Basically kicking out the usuitable workers.
In the Q source it appears to be followed by the saying about the "sword of the tongue" that this sword was goung to cut the Jewish family in half. But we should note, this is the sword of the tongue, not a real sword.
Just had a picture on my mibd. Put an image of Jesus with the swords and flames up against the peaceful lamb. Will make an effect you think??
Not saying I exactly believe this, but I wonder if the book of Revelation kind of points to the notion of enantiodromia. If the Christian psyche becomes one-sided, having Jesus symbolically fulfill this role of vengeance may actually prevent Christians from actually lashing back. In other words by exporting that function to Jesus , this book MIGHT (I have no idea) actually counterintuitively prevent Christians from snapping due to the abuse and trauma that seems inherent to any group of people taught not to fight back and whose religion grew in the most abusive of cultures - where the rage instinct of slaves was suppressed and would ultimately lead to endless destruction if not displaced. But I have no idea. Just a thought...
Its been awhile since I last heard an interview or talk by you, Bart, and I'm so glad you are addressing this subject, as it is something I've personally brought up to Bible-believers for the past 25 years - the fact that the Jesus of Revelation and the Jesus of the Gospels are completely different characters, and that the God and Christ of Revelation sound like a coupe of murderous cosmic psychopaths. Also, think about this: When the question goes out "who is worthy to open the scroll...and there was none found worthy but the lamb...(etc)", that would mean that he that sat upon the throne - God - was not found worthy to open the scroll, if none was worthy but the lamb. Just another thought. Keep up the great work!
Side note, I've been trying to tell people for about the last 20 yrs myself that the Old Testament God and the New Testament aren't even the same God. No fundamentalist wants to hear it though.
Posting as Deb Fisher- if you accept the Trinity, the lamb (Jesus) and god (the father) are the same, so if only the lamb is worthy, this means that both his essence as god ( the father) and Jesus ( the lamb) are the same entity.
@@mattr.1887side note also. Christians think that the God in the Old Testament is Jesus. Weird.
@@adamcarroll5130that’s two God then.
@@mattr.1887 Several early sects of followers had that same belief. I believe it was Marcion that led one group which believed Jesus was not from the God of the Old Testament.
About 14:45. Genesis 1:26. Wait. Man created God in his own image?
I can’t hear the words Son of Man without hearing a trump adoring preacher who says Jesus was the son of god and trump is the messiah, the son of man.
In Revelation, there are 13 calls to write across seven enumerated cities - just as there are 13 writings of Paul in the NT across seven enumerated cities. Revelation mimics Paul's standard openings and closings from his letters and quotes phrases unique to Paul like the "Book of Life" and "King of Kings." On its face, John mimics Paul's "Revelation of Jesus Christ" from Galatians 1:11-12. Are these mere coincidences? I don't think so.
Revelation is an exegetical masterpiece that calls readers to discern between "John" vs "I, John," "Jesus" vs "I, Jesus" - Elohim, the image of the creator God in Genesis vs Yahweh Tseba'oth, the God of Armies.
If you read Revelation carefully, it teaches us how to discern between prophets and false prophets, messiah's and false messiahs, the God of heaven and the gods of the earth (human misperceptions of God - not necessarily another God).
Frankly, I don't think the NT would make sense without Revelation nor do I think we could understand the history of the Word in Judeo-Christian history - the whole of Biblical scripture - without it.
To cast the Book of Revelation in such a negative light without truly understanding or explaining it is a disservice in my opinion...
"sell your coat and buy a sword" said Jesus.
Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21, 14:1 refer to Jesus as "son of the Father". Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the Father". Gustav Volkmar in 1857 said Mark's Gospel was a parable for Paul and Paul's Gospel and was written to counter the "gospel" of the Book of Revelation. It stands to reason then the Jesus Barabbas of Revelation would feature as an insurrectionist and murderer in Mark's Gospel (Luz: Paul's and Mark's theologia crucis vs. Revelation's theologia gloriae). It is probably the case the Book of Revelation we have now is not exactly the same as the one that was available to Mark in 73AD. There may have been an Ur-Revelation. See Dr. James Tabor's excellent blogs on this. So if Mark's Jesus Christ is not the historical Jesus, and Revelation's Jesus Barabbas is not the historical Jesus, then who was the historical Jesus?
I don't think Jesus and the Gospel authors were on the same page at all.
It is funny that Bart speaks with laughter but Megan keeps a straight face the whole time.
Blue hair agenda overrides compassionate feelings.
You mean, apart from all the times when she smiles and laughs?
@@arfived4 I was referring to a specific time stamp but it didn’t add it sorry 😞
christ is war ...thats why he is the prince of peace ... peace is just an aspect of war and thus his other cheek. the lamb and the 144 thousand, thats the number of a roman legion. he is the lamb ares who guards the gates of hell. son of joseph is war, he holds the (silver) key to the resurrection
Yha because " Jewish tradition" didn't include Isaiah's Suffering Servant as a Messiah / Christ 😉
And look what happened. The Roman empire collapsed, Europe Christianized and European nations went on to colonize the planet and spread Christianity even further. Eventually becoming the most powerful nations in history.
What if Parthia had been a province of Rome do you think a Saoshyant like Jesus figure could have emerged and a offshoot of Zoroastrianism could have taken off in the Rome Empire just like Christianity did in are timeline.
Jesus of Nazareth had to have someone writing down what he exactly said
So where does bart get the thing about jezabel being raped as a punishment, I checked out the verses and all it says is "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering".
The naked man running away in a cloth at His arrest is counter balanced by finding no naked Jesus but his pile of cloths at the empty tomb. God's reality runs off a trinary operating system that Yahshua and Moses were aware of. It is called in English "the Similitude". Ex 25:40, tabynth. The Logos Jn 1:1, wasn't a person like Sopia wasn't a person. The Logos is the program language which runs on the equivalence of morals and ethics in a trinay format.
One part of Jesus is warlike, like the Caesars, he has same initials of Julius. The more predominant pacifist part is a Buddha figure with two apostles, Simon Peter and Saul/Paul having the same initials as Sari Putra, chief disciple of Buddha. Buddhism had been brought to Alexandria, Egypt by Greek-speaking missionaries in the 3rd century BCE, where Buddhist manuscripts in Pali and Sanskrit were translated into Greek. So the Gospel writers, probably writing in Alexandria, were probably familiar with those Asian scriptures.
@@Mrpersonman0 I'm NOT trying to ignore or replace a "historical Jesus"! I'm not very concerned with whether Jesus was either mythical or historical, although it seems like, if he was historical, his life was heavily embellished. I've just noticed similarities that are significant to me in the stories about and initials of the Gospel Jesus to Julius Caesar and the initials of Jesus's two most prominent apostles and Buddha's chief disciple. The slash mark between Saul and Paul is obviously not from the Bible, i used it because those names were only used separately, not together -- in the book of Acts he was first called "Saul", then he started being called "Paul", with no explanation, which seems odd. There are several UA-cam videos worth watching, if you haven't already seen them, such as Jesus was Caesar/ Did the Romans Invent Jesus Christ? with James S. Valiant on a MythVision podcast. Also Valliant's website, CreatingChrist.com. Also a book and video, Caesars Messiah by Joseph Atwill, about the parallels between the Gospel Jesus and the Flavian Caesars. There are several videos exploring and disputing, or agreeing, with alleged similarities of Jesus to Buddha --one by "Inspiring Philosophy" claims that Buddha's life story may have been altered to resemble that of Gospel Jesus, and NOT vice versa. Other interesting videos are Jesus was a Buddhist Monk, a BBC documentary, and another, Definitive Proof Jesus of Nazareth was a Buddhist Monk. There are other books dealing in greater depth with the Jesus-Caesar and Jesus-Buddha story parallels that i would love to read but either cannot borrow from my local library or other libraries or else can't afford to buy!
@@deewesthill1213 … I’m not sure who came up with that but the Pali canon was written before Jesus was born in the first century BCE
@@deewesthill1213 Buddhism had spread and institutionalized well before it even knew of Christianity, and Christianity certainly makes historical note of Buddhism before it has gained any significant traction.
@@deewesthill1213 also yeah there is a long history of ahistorical claims about Jesus as a Buddha which while interesting have not been substantiated by the majority or even any significant minority of scholars in the last 100 years. There was some awareness of Buddhism in the early development of the Christian church but jesus as a figure very clearly emerges coherently in Christianity from the confluence of apocalyptic Judaism and Greco Roman cultural and philosophical trends - the latter of which have some connection potentially to Greco Buddhism historically, but nowhere near enough to cause us to look for zebras when we already have the horses
@@deewesthill1213 it’s not that it’s wrong perse to understand Jesus as a figure emerging in the broader cultural context of the Caesars, or even the much more limited reach of Greco Buddhism, but it ignores both the innovations of Christians of the time and the bigger fish that is apocalyptic Judaism and the innovations that were needed to bring Jesus as a figure out of that tradition and into the broader Greco Roman world
I always enjoy your show. Thank you.
The story of the Pacifistic Lamb Christ that preached inaction and submission could be - is - a version of Jesus created after Jesus's death to placate Roman authorities that would otherwise view Christians as members of a insurrection. Explains why Jesus is so submissive as to walk to his own death rather than run. A more reasonable depiction would be a violent revolutionary and would-be Messiah who was dragged in to face charges while his followers ran and hid. Afterwards, the few who kept going, his brother and others, changed the story to a murder by malicious Jews, excusing the Romans - all to avoid being crucified for being Jesusites. After Paul's takeover of the churches, more or less, the new story was set in stone.
I don’t think this is true at all, 1) Roman authorities aren’t reading Christian texts, 2) Jesus in Mark says “why are you forsaken me”, he thought his Father would save him and he didn’t. Even if these weren’t his exact words, the essence, his confusion and despair certainly likely convey how he felt.
@@HahaDamn The gospels aren't facts. Not for historical purposes, anyway. In Mark he laments, in John he's a stoic literal demi-god. So any monologue is not useable. They are fiction. He can' t be both.
As for the violent nature of his group - why was Peter carrying a sword for Passover in the city? He USED it, per the story, to cut off a slave's ear in rage. That was not a thing you did as a peaceful attendee. I think the writer slipped up and left in a story that clarified the purpose of the Jesusites in Jerusalem that week. They were there for a ruckus.
@@HahaDamn This particular quote is an interpolation from the Old Testament (Psalm 22). It is not a reliable Jesus tradition. Also, Romans definitely read Christian texts once they became available. That's how Justin the Philosopher ended up becoming Justin Martyr, after all.
Very interesting. Looking forward to read Bart's Armageddon.
25:00 "Why this violent imagery?" -- If it is granted, as Dr. Ehrman grants, that the imagery is not to be taken literally, isn't this just another way of asking. "Why does Jesus, in Revelation 2, seem so upset that 'Jezebel' is teaching people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, i.e., to false gods?" Is it really a question why the true God (the have-no-other-gods-before-me God) does not want us to waste our lives devoted to false gods?
If you grant that the imagery is symbolic, surely you must then also understand that that imagery is chosen to symbolise something specific. It is not chosen at random. The imagery is violent because the underlying message is violent.
And are you really saying that because she allegedly worshiped 'false' gods it is entirely justified to then suggest her violent gang rape and the subsequent murder of her children? Aren't you ashamed to be publicly defending such gross misogyny and horrific violence in the year 2023? Seek help.
Apocalypse: deferred Christian revenge come to pass.
If someone doesn't believe in any god/s, how is that not a statement: They believe, "No gods exist." Which needs to be proven unless they know everything??? Acting as though a guess is true seems very ignorant?
@@beemixsy then how do you know it doesn't exist?
@@beemixsy but you have to know everything to know your guess/ belief is true. Why guess then act as though that guess is true?
Some of us are okay with whether or not God(s) exists being a mystery. Its kind of a grown up view.
Every word of Jesus if he said it someone would have had to remember it
11:20 - The "We have here two swords" episode in Luke 22:36-38 involves the need (or desire) to fulfill a prophecy that the Messiah would be counted among the lawless. I.e., there needed to be some sort of pretext to arrest Jesus and get the ball rolling for his trials. When Dr. Ehrman says that Jesus is "just the opposite" in Revelation, this should be understood in light of Christ's opposite missions (as depicted in the New Testament) during his Incarnation (to save His people from their sins) and at his second coming (to bring Judgment Day). Jesus is depicted as a person who acts differently depending on His mission; he is not two different people, any more than a shepherd who feeds his flock on Monday, and fights off the wolves on Tuesday.
Yeah, but it's a little odd that one days he's talking, forgiveness 'turn the other cheek," and the next he's slaughtering people.
@@trilithon108Slaughter ans Death penality are different things in our world
So When Jesus judges its not?
@@ignipotent7276 What??
@@trilithon108 Seems you dont understand
Why isn't death penalty considered slaughter?
I have just given this a thumbs up... oddly I became the 667 person to do so.🤔
Jesus is the Son of David. He does the will of his Father. He hands the kingdom over to his God and Father. David is Yahweh.
20:32 - A moment. Granting that Jesus did not endorse the Name-It-And-Claim-It nonsense that is preached by some "televangelists," Jesus did not tell everyone everywhere to go and sell everything they have. Context matters, as I am sure Dr. Ehrman knows.
Revelation and Hell is the afterbirth of the New Earth. The blood, guts and suffering left over from the birth. It's often thought of as justice however it just is. Ultimate God or whomever has control over the unfolding of the apocalypse does not have sympathy like we can imagine as a man may. The whole world was set up as a means of processing and refining souls. When the maker of the world says it's over, so it is. There are beasts of burden that will bear the load, Satan, demons and the others unrefined.
And he wrote slowly as he know how slowly they could read...
👍
Kolbrin Bible master edition
Manuscripts 33.5
Four times the stars have moved to new positions and twice the sun has changed direction of his journey. Twice the Destroyer has struck Earth and three times the heavens have opened and shut. Twice the land has been swept clean by water.
The Destroyer is due to cross Earth's path again ...
Jeremiah 25.32 and 48.8
Disasters will soon spread from nation to nation. They will come like a powerful storm to all the faraway places on earth... the Destroyer will come against every town, not one town will escape... the Lord said this will happen."
Manuscripts 3.4
When blood ( red ash ) drops apon the Earth, the Destroyer will appear and mountains will open up and belch forth fire and ashes ( volcano eruption ). Trees will be destroyed and all living things engulfed. Waters will be swallowed up by the land and seas will boil.
Manuscripts 3.6
The people will scatter in madness. They will hear the TRUMPET and battlecry of the Destroyer and will seek refuge within dens in the earth ( bunkers ). Terror will eat away their hearts and their courage will flow from them like water from a broken pitcher. They will be eaten up in the flames of wrath and consumed by the breath of the Destroyer.
Manuscripts 3.7
Men will fly in the air as birds and swim in the seas as fishes, Men will talk peace one with another, hypocrisy and deceit shall have their day. Women will be as men and men as women, passion will be a plaything of man.
Manuscripts 3.9
Then men will be ill at ease in their hearts, they will seek they know not what, and uncertainty and doubt will trouble them. They will possess great riches but be poor in spirit. Then will the Heavens tremble and the Earth move, men will quake in fear and while terror walks with them the Heralds of Doom will appear. They will come softly, as thieves to the tombs, men will not know them for what they are, men will be decieved, the hour of the Destroyer is at hand.
1 Thessalonians 5:4-6
But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.
Manuscripts 3.10
In those days, men will have the Great Book ( kolbrin bible ) before them, wisdom will be revealed; the few will be gathered for the stand; it is the hour of trial. The dauntless ones will survive; the stouthearted will not go down to destruction.
Manuscripts 3.1
Men forget the days of the Destroyer. Only the Wise know where it went and that it will return in its appointed hour.
Mark 13:32-36
King James Version
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
Revelation 12.1-9
" And then a great wonder appeared in the heaven: There was a women who was clothed with the sun. The moon was ( positioned ) under her feet. She ( our dark sister ) had a crown of 12 stars on her head ( 12 escorts orbiting her celestial body ) . Then another wonder appeared in heaven: There was a giant ( celestial ) Red dragon ... the tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and threw them down to earth ( meteorite shower ). ( The giant dragon is that old snake from the beginning, with its red meandering comet-like serpentine tail, called the devil )
Prophet Elidors warning...
Silver Bought 7.18
I am the prophet to tell men of the frightener/ Destroyer, there are many generations that will pass before it appears. It will be a thing of monstrous greatness arising in the form of a crab.... It's body will be red... It will spread destruction across the Earth, running from Sunrise to sunset. It will come in the days of decision, when men are inflicted with spiritual blindness, when one ignorance has been replaced with another, when men walk in darkness and call it light. In those days, men will yearn after pleasure and comfort, they will go down roads of ease, encouraged by women incapable of inspiring them towards the upward path.
Silver Bough 7.19
There will be disbelief in spiritual things, but this will proceed from ignorance, it will be a thing of the lips, for disbelief is not in the heart and nature of man. No matter how much a man cries out his disbelief, in times of turmoil, in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, when frightened by the unknown, he turns to spiritual things for comfort and strength.
Silver Bough 7.20
In the days of the great conflict, do not pray.lthat The Supreme Spirit be on your side, this would be a futile waste of time. Pray rather that you be on the right side, the side of The Supreme Spirit.
Silver Bough 7.21
Hear my voice, for I tell of things to come. There will be no great signs heralding the coming of the frightener/The Destroyer, it will come when men are least prepared. It will come when they seek only worldly things. In those days men will be falling away from manliness and women from womanliness. It will be a time of confusion and chaos.
Silver Bough 7. 22
I have warned of the frightener/The Destroyer, I have done what I am charged to do....
Here is a hypothesis: What if Revelation was written during Nero (666) and after the burning of Rome? Then Mark was written after Revelation. It would almost be a polemic to those like the Pauline Christian converts that are "waiting for the wrath to come." Mark was showing that the violent Son of Man sects didn't get it. If Revelation was authored by John son of Zebedee(not written by, but authored) wouldn't it fit his nickname "son of thunder?"
There are statements in Mark that show that Mark did think Jesus taught of future wrath/judgement from God towards the unrepentant. Mark 9:43, Mark 12:9
They were all written in the first century before 70 AD. The gospels foretell of They coming judgment on Jerusalem (Babelon on the Great).
Nice work everyone
Only if you’re a Christian who can’t interpret.
I think the imagery is just plain sadistic. And you have to be sadistic to dream up this imagery. I don’t think Revelation is as much about Jesus as it is about the person who wrote it. We can see the appeal that sadistic imagery has to the authoritarian personalities in our present day culture.
God is not a man. Worshipping a man as God is idolatry.