For example… Was the Kingdom of Heaven primarily Spiritual (invisible to the naked eye)
Or was it a mental vision (recognized as a state of existence in the mind’s eye)
Or was it an emotional feeling (something experienced in, say, the human heart)
Or was it an actual physical place (somewhere you could physically go to, be it in this “world” or the next)
AND… was it possible the “end of the world” it might take to clear the “path” to it, was not meant as an earth shattering physicality, but actually the end of the social mindset (old wineskin) for a New and better one, which Jesus was trying to show us THE WAY to getting to. What do YOU think? (See if you can get past just repeating what you’ve been told it “must” be … and try to pose what you can best imagine, in this whole big universe, it could or even should be to us as honest human beings) No answers to be demonized as “wrong.”
I believe that all the bible’s prophecies came true, every one of them. SI have heard my view called preterist, but have not looked into what that term means.
So the kingdom of god (or heaven) is where god gives his people (us, the good guys) rest, while banishing them (the bad guys). Biblically, since many scribes contributed and often opposed each other’s viewpoint, the “kingdom of god” to one group of people did not always match the “kingdom of god of others.” For some scribes this rest, this peace was when people were allowed to intermarry, and perhaps even conduct business on the Sabbath. For others, this rest was found in purity.
the Messiahs who brought rest (the kingdom of god) were people like Joshua (Jesus), David, Cyrus, and again Joshua (Jesus Jehozadak) who rebuilt the temple. Nebuchadnezzar did not exactly bring peace, but he did protect Jeremiah and promote Gedaliah two leaders of prominent Jerusalem families who seemed to be pro-Babylon.
Given this context I believe Mark and the other gospel writers were referring to the strong arm of Vespasian bringing the kingdom of god. It’s sort of tough to stomach the idea of the one who destroyed the temple as some sort of savior. Perhaps that is simply what Mark and others wanted to present to their Roman masters… Perhaps Mark genuinely had a dislike for the temple practices, as did the Essenes, and saw the LORD using Vespasian for his own purposes, as an early “divine right of kings” type of idea.
As far as an after life, obviously Paul believes in eternal life. I am not convinced that the gospel writers are talking about the same thing though. To me, their eternal life is the quality of life of a good person, which of course was taken away in Judea by the revolt and the squashing of that revolt.
The Jewish Apocalyptic kingdom on earth ruled by the Jewish Apocalyptic Son of Man did not materialize when Jesus said it would, so, I am not giving credibility to the Kingdom of Heaven that it is worth investigating.
I searched for the historical Jesus and found a composite character of historical fiction.
Is there life after death? Yes.
Is there after death a kingdom of heaven ruled by a local/tribal (12 tribes of Jacob/Israel) god of Ancient Judea who abandoned his Temple, son, and people (Parable of the Wicked Tenants), favoring Rome, as did Paul and Josephus?
I no longer have major concerns about and identity with the Apocalyptic phase of the religion of ANCIENT Temple Judaism.
“The Jewish Apocalyptic kingdom on earth ruled by the Jewish Apocalyptic Son of Man did not materialize when Jesus said it would, so, I am not giving credibility to the Kingdom of Heaven that it is worth investigating.”
Apocalyptic meaning just “revealed” as in a hidden revelation, I would say that post 70 AD Judeans angry at the warmongers who revolted and caused the destruction of a fine, wealthy kingdom may have thought that indeed Vespasian represented the Lord’s divine wrath and the “rest” especially from those who resisted against the Lord’s anointed, who is whoever the Lord anoints, Roman or not.
Apocalyptic means: just revealed, a hidden revelation just revealed? ? ?
Steefen:
You didn’t pick that up from Bart Ehrman. What does that even mean?
FocusMyView:
Post-AD70, there were Judeans angry at the warmongers who revolted and caused the destruction of a fine, wealthy kingdom.
They thought Vespasian represented the Lord’s divine wrath.
Steefen:
The Lord’s divine wrath for what? ? ?
“After the mid-first century, as a result of the Pax Romana, the provinces previously governed by prefects, who were military men,
were gradually moved into the hands of procurators, who were essentially civilian fiscal officials.”
Procurator Ancient Rome – Wikipedia
It wasn’t a fine kingdom with the abuses of the procurators; but, Being difficult to rule has its disadvantages.
Those in revolt get all the headlines, and prior to 66 AD, the revolts were barely more than a few small gangs here and there. Peace generally means prosperity, especially compared to war. So many things are destroyed. In the face of those ruins, anything beforehand, especially with the grace allotted to the past in our imaginations, looks way better than the war atrocities and the ruins. I am not convinced that the lot of first century Judeans wanted revolt, or that they were particularly hard to govern. Revolts arose in may outlying areas, and even in Rome itself.
I think Mark, writing in Rome in 70 AD or after, blamed the revolt on those who did not obey God’s commands. Living under the protection of a foreign ruler was a valid Judean idea per Jeremiah, who is the most mentioned OT prophet by OT authors. The biggest enemy to each Judean sect was the rules and regulations of those in charge of the temple, not who was sitting on the throne.
There is some question as to the actual nature of the kingdom envisioned by Jewish apocalypticists. However they all seemed to think quite concretely of an actual kingdom on the earth established and run by God through his ministers. For the first Christians Jesus’ resurrection was to be the beginning not a one off. Heaven was where God and his divine council lived. You might visit but you wouldn’t actually live there. For Paul at least, the resurrection body dispensed with earthly distinctions but it was still a body though made immortal.
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet does not mean does not mean just revealed prophet.
An apocalyptic prophet tells people about a coming end.
The biblical John the Baptist, in the wilderness of Judea told people repent for the kingdom of heaven is near which meant repenting would help one get judged as worthy of entering the kingdom of heaven.
An apocalyptic prophet in the gospels is referring to Judgment and Tribulation, THEN, the kingdom of God.
Just revealed is out of context. I’m not talking about the book of revelation.
Take a look at Matthew 24: 29-34 instead of being difficult. No one needs a comment about Greek words that are out of context. When Bart has a book titled Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, read Matthew 24: 29-34. Deal with the Revelation of Jesus and not go off topic into an off topic comment about “uncover.” You are really going to miss the point of Jesus’ assertions? ? ?
Within the context of Jesus’ assertion at verse 34, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” not until all these things have been revealed.
I do wonder if even Bible scholars misuse the same phrase (apocalyptic) that they all know means “uncover” – by using the term in the way most people today understand it “world ending.”
So when Bart Ehrman calls Jesus an apocalyptic preacher, what sense do you think he means??
It is weird, the concepts that get translated out of ancient languages into English as “world”; If you mean “world-ending” in the sense of aeon- or saeculum-ending, I think it works alright; one might say, ending the current world-order or the current age. If you mean “kosmos-ending” or “mundum-ending”, it doesn’t work quite so well.
I think part of the weirdness comes down to the fact we are talking about the limits of different cosmological models; a good part of the ancient world didn’t think of a non-material reality; an utterly immaterial spiritual realm wasn’t on their radar (Augustine talks about facing the challenge of understanding spirit in utter opposition to matter himself). Even for moderns the lines aren’t perfectly clear; e.g., traditionally Catholics think of the end of the world as the end of the physical world as a whole, but they also believe in a literally bodily resurrection of our actual physical bodies and a physical heaven for them to occupy eternally. Again, understanding what Paul is getting at when he distinguishes the elements of the human body (sarx, pneuma, psyche, soma) isn’t straightforward.
“misuse” was a strong term, but it can be confusing.
I think the two explanations – a revealed truth and a end time prediction – are distinct yet always together. Is that because they’ve conflated them at times?
Loved the Isaiah as an example to illustrate the wild creativity in describing otherwise human endeavors. Yet we should not even need an outside (if one sees Isaiah as unapocalyptic) help. Its the basis of the concept of “apocalyptic” itself, with its many headed monsters, that allows “son of man coming on the clouds” to mean something quite mundane. We know the monsters represent the mundane, why not the son of man on a cloud stuff?!
I need to ask about a man having labor pains though.
What we refer to as the “End Times” is largely a function of dispensational thinking that doesn’t go much further back than the 19th century. First century Jewish apocalypticists seem to have thought rather concretely of an earthly Messianic kingdom. For apocalypticists the “uncovering” was the revealed significance of otherwise inscrutable earthly events, now seem from a divine perspective. That included but was not synonymous with the “end of the age”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)