Reddit mentions: The best christian prophecies books

> Where in the New Testament does it say that a church should have a prophet?

"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." - Ephesians 4:11-14

That's the general biblical background that most people appeal to. Notice that it says these 5 roles are needed to equip the people for service until we all reach unity of the faith. We ain't there yet.

> How do you decide who should be a prophet exactly?

I'd direct that same question to the evangelists, pastors, and teachers. How does a church decide who fills these roles? It's the same verse that literally states the same need. In general, cessationists draw a line after the first two and say we need the last three.

> When you say speak the words of God, I assume you aren't just talking about reading the Bible out loud. Are you suggesting people can add to the Bible?

This is basically an argument that misrepresents the gift of prophesy. I'm sure you don't mean that, but if you're interested in a full theological deep dive in this, Wayne Grudem's The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today provides pretty good clarity. When Paul said he wants all to prophesy, he isn't asking for a company of Bible writers. He's looking for a group of people that supernaturally demonstrate "God with us" in such a clear way that even the lost fall on their faces and proclaim that God is really among here (1 Corinthians 14).

That can happen from the Bible being read out loud. But I've seen it happen when I spoke out what God put on my heart and it lead to someone coming to Christ. Basically God showed me that a person in Starbucks was an artist and that God wanted this person to come to Christ so that He could paint the beautiful picture of the Gospel through him. The short story: my wife and I saw a guy who we felt like we needed to share Christ with and asked our friends for prayer. One of our friends texted us a name we should ask the guy about (word of knowledge). It was the name of the dude's very good friend who was moving into town soon (opened his ears to receive the Gospel). I shared that I thought he was an artist (he sat up proudly and said, "as a matter of fact I am") and we shared the Gospel with Him and what I was seeing. He said he wanted to receive Jesus now - we prayed, laid hands on him and asked the Holy Spirit to fill him. We asked him if God said anything to him while we prayed. He had a soft look in his eyes and said, "Jesus loves me very much". The guy then shared that a lot of his friends are suicidal and he didn't know how to help. He's now shining for Christ in a dark place simply from a word of knowledge and prophecy.

Note, this isn't adding to Scripture. This isn't replacing the Bible. It's simply demonstrating the person of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit in such a way that lost souls come into the Kingdom. This is prophecy. This is what Paul wants us all to be doing.

> How do you know if someone is speaking for God? What if they are actually being demonically possessed or they are secretly a charlatan or something?

Read 1 Corinthians 12 - are they proclaiming Jesus as Christ? The same Jesus we worship? Test the spirits. Do you have a "holy hunch" in a given situation? This requires discernment and the big question is: are they glorifying the resurrect Christ and His powerful Gospel? Or is about the person?

> Do you explicitly share the Gospel when you evangelize? Or do you just tell them that God wants to talk to them?

Absolutely! I'm a Baptist - we pride ourselves in the ability to articulate the Gospel, lol :p. I explicitly share and proclaim the Gospel using words and very simple analogies. However, I believe the Gospel presentation coupled with a demonstration of the Holy Spirit's miracle working power tends to "seal the deal" a lot faster than talking it out. So I try to find where they are sick or dead and ask Jesus to heal or raise what is crushed. Jesus is a healer and I want the lost and dying world to know He is such.

> Physical: Since joining the gym I've been hitting it Monday, Wednesday, Friday going up on the weights which is awesome. No losing weight.
>
> Diet has been lots of rice, chicken or beef, eggs, soups, peanut butters, dried fruits, trail mix, and jerky.

​

This is excellent. You're on the right track to build muscle, and eating as clean as you are it will be mostly muscle with very little fat.

​

>No porn, weed, cigarettes, fornication, or anything to note which is great progress from this time last year.

​

So it sounds like you've made huge progress here which is awesome! Great job, any tips to share with others who may be struggling in these areas? Did you go cold turkey or did you gradually remove these things from your life?

​

>No girlfriend to note and the young lady I talk to is in Trinidad so there's no way to go to far phycsically with her

​

Ok, I thought you lived nearby. She's not thousands of miles away is she? (I'm not asking your to doxx yourself obviously)

​

>It's been trial by fire to control my sexual desires.

​

Did you see this post? There's some great helpful advice in the comments on controlling sexual desires.

​

>So I have been telling you about the girl from Trini that I like. Well for context, I've wanted a large family of about 5 or 6 for years now. She also wants the same thing. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and start saying things like imma put a baby in you. Imma marry you and just very aggressive language. She responds very well to this but here's the back draw.

​

Ha, slow your roll Rambo.

​

>Last night before I called her I thought it would be wise to get counsel from my minister. So I did. needless to say I was advised to slow my role, meet her parents, just hang out and get to know each other because after you're married is too late to get to know each other.

​

This is wise advice.

​

>I call her we chat about the regular stuff I ask about her day she loves to hear me talk about mine and we do that for about 20-45 minutes. next thing I hear is "talk to me" I was sarcastic and said clearly we haven't been talking for the last 45 minutes. she repeats and I say the same thing.

​

I think she wants you to ask more questions so she can talk. That's what most women really want is to talk while someone listens who is actually interested.

​

>I get no response and hear get to the point.

>I usually have a great attitude out of her but this was out of the blue for her so I say i like your other attitude better.

>I guess she wanted me to talk about marriage and family with her but I was trying to have fun. I mentioned something a few days ago about I had some ideas to run across her but I never did so I guess I was expected to go there but I honestly can't read minds so all I know is I'm dealing with an attitude and somethings up.

​

Nope, she wants to know that you "get it." Ask more questions, let her talk more.

​

>I do struggle with living up to my father's expectation. I'm advised to look for a younger girl that's pretty and lives close by but I only have girls in my church that aren't so young or close by and not always interested in me so I do struggle with his expectations of me.

​

No matter what his "expectations" are, every father wants a son he can look at and be proud of. Focus on making your heavenly Father proud first and your earthly father will no doubt be proud of you as well.

​

>I have mastered AA. No to AM and NI. No to STFU and yes to DNGAF i think i have too much DNGAF so please advise if there is such a thing. I think I pass fitness tests and fail comfort tests. I've gotta brush up on those again.

​

Too much DNGAF is when you just don't care. If that was the case, you wouldn't be asking so don't worry about it. Just keep working on the rest and you'll get there. This stuff takes time and practice.

​

>The only place I feel pressure to act from is in God's way. I work in a hospital and am literally surrounded by TONS of attractive women some who are really receptive and flirty with me so it's extremely hard to control my desires. I haven't done much flirting talking to them but my mind still wonders and I literally imagine myself banging them from the back until I can catch myself and tell myself no and to focus and try to build something with this girl in trini with the same religious and family beliefs as me.

​

Why limit yourself? Why not date some local women and see if any of them are good candidates for marriage? Oneitis prevents you from having abundance mentality.

​

>My mission isn't solidified but I got a post from last week's OYS to look at I started but I've gotta do the work in the post. my mission does extend beyond the home and My pastor is discipling me. I'm not discipling anyone else as of yet.

​

Start with writing a basic Vision statement and develop it from there.

>Haven't talked to any of my non christian friends about God but I think now is a great time to start.

​

Watch those videos I shared with you and learn the basics of sharing the Gospel biblically, otherwise you will end up with something that looks like "Hey, God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" which isn't biblical.

​

>And I could use work on prophecy.

​

Check out The Book of Signs by Dr. David Jeremiah, he's solid.

How lovely - then we are in agreement (which we have been all along on my part).

This is what you wrote (other than questioning my knowledge of the Bible and my Christian ethics etc):

"Science uses evidence to come to a conclusion .
Christianity has a conclusion, and tries to find evidence to support that conclusion.
That's the difference.

My original statement stands.
You have a conclusion(there is a God that created everything) and you are trying to find evidence(the prophecies of the old testament) that supports that conclusion.
Unless you can find an example where the evidence precedes the conclusion, I don't understand why you would disagree with what I wrote.

The evidence that was written after the conclusion was made.

But the very evidence YOU were using to come to YOUR conclusion was written AFTER the original conclusion was made.

Are you understanding this?

You seem to be in disagreement with my original post, and yet each of your responses supports it.

That you would run away from the discussion as soon as you realized that you completely misunderstood the posts you were replying to.

Unless you can provide an example of evidence preceding the conclusion, there is nothing to disagree about here. You are arguing for the sake of arguing."

Christianity from my perspective isnt simply believing in God and looking for evidence of his existance. Many other religions believe in God, like Islam for instance which even acknowledges Jesus as a prophet but not as God. Christianity from my perspective is about Jesus Christ being (God) the creator and savior. Not even all professing Christians acknowledge Jesus to be God, because there are different versions of the Bible and different denominations of "Christianity".

If you want evidence of Jesus being God you go to the (full) Bible - not merely evidence of a "God". Most of the Jews (who also believe in God) did after all reject Jesus because they did not (inspite of having access to the old testament of the bible) understand he was God. And my version of the Bible (the 1611 authorized King James Bible) since it starts with the old testament, does not conclude that Jesus is God from the beginning of the book. It (among other things) makes a case to prove who God is, and presents the evidence (by for example prophecy) as it moves forward.

So apparently we have been in agreement all along, which I tried to tell you by ACKNOWLEDGING TWO TIMES the VALID point you made early on about scientific method. But I suppose it never occured to you that maybe it was you who did not fully understand me (perhaps I was not clear enough or I just assumed you knew the Bible) - that is why I backed out of the discussion, because I dont like unessecary confrontations, since it rarely leads to anything positive (proven by the fact we still have this nonesensical "argument").

From the beginning the Bible merely states the fact that God is the Creator of everything, not who he is:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here is ONE, of over 340 prophecies, presented of the future comming of (God in the flesh) Jesus Christ in the old testament, which he fullfilled during his earthly ministry:

Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Hundreds and hundreds of pages later in the new testament conclusions are made about Jesus being God by (among other things) fullfillment of prophecy (and mind the fact that the different books of the Bible are written by many different testators separated by hundreds of years and for the most part without personal affiliation):

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Eph 3:9 and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

If you want context to those verses or to know what the Bible says in-between you have to read it for yourself (unless you have done that already) - but you will not find the word "Jesus" and "God" or "the Lord" in the same context or verse before what most people consider to be the new testament. Infact the word "Jesus" doesnt appear at all in the, 1611 authorized King James Bible version, old testament:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=jesus&qs_version=AKJV

The fact that the 1611 authorized King James Bible is perfect and without contradicition or flaws from the beginning to the end (unlike most sceintific research papers with a backgound story to motivate the study, research questions, thesis, method, empirical data, analysis and conclusion), despite being "written" by several different testators centuries apart, is because God himself is the author and the prophets (testators of the Biblical books) are merely "type writing machines". So in one sence you have an extra bonus point, since Jesus himself knew from the beginning when he started writing the Bible, that he was God (but I doubt it that is what you meant):

2 Tim 3:16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If you dont understand the Bible (which many people dont) or have not read it, I recommend this book for easy interpretation (including prophecy):

"Dispensational truth - or Gods plan and purpose through the ages", by Clereance Larkin (it has its limitations but is a very good explaining book).

https://www.amazon.com/Dispensational-Truth-Full-Illustrations-Purpose/dp/1614271046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522235578&sr=8-1&keywords=dispensational+truth+clarence+larkin&dpID=51ZFb4i6s7L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

I was infact done "arguing" with you early on because there was no disagreement on my part. And I certainly am now, because I have other things to tend to and I hope you respect that. And if you do not agree with me on my view of GOD, my definition of CHRISTIANITY, my view on how to INTERPRET the Bible or about the validity of the 1611 authorized King James BIBLE - that is ok with me, I am not here to convert you or to argue with you for the sake of arguing. But dont tell me one more time the Bible concludes certain things without prior evidence, because it doesnt. Either way I am done here and if you repeat yourself and/or question my beliefs or Christian ethics again, I will simply block you so I need not deal with you.

I don't believe Paul's teachings were contrary to Jesus but that's also based on perspective when reading.

The reason Christians don't pray to the father directly is because we believe Jesus as the Son of God is the mediator. He died on the cross a man, but because he is also God, he defeated death taking Man's sins upon himself.

We are told to pray to god the father:Matt 6:9, 1 Pet 1:17, Eph 3:14

But we can only approach the father in the name of Jesus the son

John 14:13 that 'whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do.

In essence we get to God through his Son Jesus Christ who bridged the gap between heaven and earth with his death on the cross.

The reason Jesus could pray to God directly was because he was God. I know we don't agree on that so that is where the difference lies.

The reason I look at Islam for the Anti-christ is because the similarities are quite profound. More appropriately labeled Anti-Parallels. The end times beliefs are amazing similar. I would encourage you to look at this book to view the evidence. There are so many similarities its hard to call it a coincidence.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Islamic-Antichrist-Shocking-Nature/dp/1935071122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333042453&sr=8-1

I don't know why you would accuse me of hating you. I never said anything like that and I never would. The greatest commandment says to love the lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. I try as best I can to treat everyone with Love. That doesn't matter who black, white, asian, Hindu, or Muslim it doesn't matter. Jesus said to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you. All this pretty much means to love everyone no matter what. Just as God loves everyone.

Yes Islam does honor Jesus, but not as the Son of God. Thats where the major difference lies. Its one thing to believe in Jesus but its another to believe he is the Son of God.

I would love to work on fufilling God's plan. I have no desire to fight anyone. And on the contrary I approach with Love not hate. There is nothing wrong with loving those you disagree with. However the reality is that the Christianity and Islam differ on some very major points. Not just the big 3 being Jesus Diety, Whether or not he really died on the cross, or having a personal relationship with God(shirk). God's plan will be fufilled but the Last Day only one will be right. The idea of Pluralism between Islam and Christianity is very dangerous because they differ on these points and more especially when dealing with the end times. To sum it up ultimately in the last day the only people who remain are the ones who worship Allah and proclaim Muhammad as his messenger no?

Christianity claims that ultimately only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God will be saved.



While we do worship "the father" they are different God's for the reason I specified above. I can have a personal relationship with my God, and he also has a Son. Islam teaches the opposite that to have a personal relationship with Allah is shirk so how can we both be worshiping the same God? Both are god's say different things. As such they both can't be right.

Either one of us is right and the other is wrong. Or the only other option is we are both wrong. One thing that is for sure is we both can't be right. That said if you think we can work together in what way?

Ive studied many religions over the years, Despite growing up Christian I still put my own religion to the test, as well as studying other religions to see with is the most plausible. Christianity has the most evidence to support it be it historical, and spiritual.

I don't treat you as being "marked by the beast." I treat you as a sinner in the same way that I am also a sinner. I believe that God sent his Jesus Christ to die on the cross, so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. We can always agree to disagree but I will pray for you, and I hope you do come to realize that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for you so that you will live in heaven.

I would encourage you to do your own research to see how Christianity and Islam stack up against each other. You are very knowledgeable and i'm sure you have done your own research. But I would also hope you do it with an open mind. I try to look at things and base my opinions on not how I want them to be but how they are.

> So in a normal, healthy, church, out of 1 Cor. 14:19, it would seem that speaking in tongues is not something that will happen often, whilst prophecy will happen all the time; and in this understanding of prophecy, which you explained in your response to question two, do corporate confession, call to worship, sermon, etc. all count as prophecy?

Our church believes in speaking in tongues and prophecy. In our 12 years of existence, we have never had a public tongue. We have prophecy almost every week.

> do corporate confession, call to worship, sermon, etc. all count as prophecy?

They can, but that's not really what I think of as prophecy. Prophecy can happen during those things, but they can easily happen without prophecy. Prophecy often happens when God just pops something into your mind - often something that you probably wouldn't have thought of on your own, or something that just comes out of nowhere it seems.

We have prophecy in the midst of our time of singing. People will come and share a summary with a pastor and he will decide whether to let them share it with the congregation or not. But prophecy also often happens in fellowship with other believers in small groups, one on one, etc.

Does this make sense?

> So speaking in tongues at Pentecost is differentiated from our contemporary manifestation of the gift of tongues?

Not different gifts, mind you, but the speaking in tongues in Acts is quite a different manifestation than the tongues in 1 Cor

> Would you consider yourself 3rd wave? What are the main differences between 3rd wave and the rest; is wikipedia a good place to read about this?

Yeah, I'm 3rd Wave. The main difference (though it often goes deeper) is this:

• Pentecostal: believes that baptism in the Spirit happens some time after conversion and often manifests itself with speaking in tongues. (Some Pentecostals believe that baptism in the Spirit always manifests itself with speaking in tongues)
  
• 3rd-Wave: believes that baptism in the Spirit happens at conversion (to all believers). Later experiences of Spirit are simply fillings of the Spirit.
  
  And no, wikipedia is not a great place to get info about this. I'm actually not really sure of good resources on it besides Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. He also has a book on prophecy called The Gift of Prophecy if you really want to delve into it. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it's a great start.

For a pretty comprehensive book on the how the Holy Spirit is taught throughout the Bible and has been viewed throughout the history of Church, your one-stop-shop is Anthony Thiselton's The Holy Spirit: In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today. One comment has already addressed Dr. Gordon Fee, and he is another go to scholar for doctrine related to the Spirit. Any of his books or commentaries would be good.

For more accessible material, Billy Graham actually wrote a little book on the Holy Spirit serval years ago that is pretty straightforward and helpful. Also, Francis Chan and J.D. Greear have written more recent books on the Holy Spirit.

To better understand the spiritual gifts I would recommend the works of Wayne Grudem or Sam Storms, as well as D.A. Carson's exposition of 1 Corinthians 12 -14.

If you would like a sermon series to listen to, I found this podcast helpful.

I hope that helps!

>The copy of Crisis of Conscience that I have is a first edition hardcover. I see that there are many revisions of this work. What has changed between the first edition and the fifth edition?

I just gave a 1st edition to another redditor on here, & have a 4th edition in my possession.

And now I can't find any sort of preview of the 1st edition online...

In my copy, there are black-&-white photos in a few of the early chapters. As I recall, the 1st edition lacked those. Also, the last part of the book has a 13th chapter entitled "Perspective". Looking at the dates of his comments in that chapter, I see that many took place well past the original printing's date of 1983. So likely much of that chapter (which contains an overview, plus comments on developments within the Watchtower Society during the 1990's & into the early 2000's) focuses on developments subsequent to the 1st (2nd & 3rd) printings.

>I may have misread things (and it's certainly possible since I'm unfamiliar with both the New Testament and JW-isms), but Ray seems to write about the pre-1975 era of his time in the organization with great fondness.

I did not get that impression at all. From chapter 7 "Predictions and Presumption" [page 172] through chapter 9 "1975: 'The Appropriate Time for God to Act'," [page 253], Ray Franz dissects the origins of their multiple false prophecies and the hubris of the Watchtower Society's claims surrounding their biggest prophecy (and failure) of 1975.

The next chapter, [chapter 10] "1914 and 'This Generation'," discusses the fallout from the failed false prophecy of 1975 & subsequent structural changes within the organization.

But the only time I ever perceived Ray Franz as having any positive feelings towards anything associated with the Watchtower Society, was when he spoke of individual members who had served faithfully, and were then cast aside like trash by the very organization they'd served so long & loyally. Undoubtedly he was feeling quite a bit of that betrayal in his own situation.

I did a brief analysis of Raymond Franz' possible motivations in this thread, in case you're interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/4bpk39/ray_franz_departure_from_watchtower_society/

I don't think he had much nostalgia for the earlier years of Knorr (who served under Rutherford, who was a terrible bully), or for the period of the initial Governing Body.

>What are some other books that you would recommend? I'm not really familiar with the ex-JW literary landscape.

There are dozens (if not more) books written about the JWs. I personally would recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Orwellian-World-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/0802065457

Haven't read this one yet, but it looks fascinating:

http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Must-Wait-Witnesses/dp/1936411237

http://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Delayed-Story-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/0802079733

That should get you started...

>4) What happened between Ray and the rest of his family? There is almost no mention of Fred Franz after the inquisition started - did they ever communicate with each other after it began or did Fred never speak to him again after they started becoming suspicious of Ray?

As I recall, "Fractured Freddie" (my nickname for that idiot) Franz never spoke to his nephew after the witch-hunt began at Bethel. Nor did ol' "Fractured Freddie" (who allegedly talked to his shoes, later in life) apparently lift a finger to help his beleaguered nephew at any point during that witch-hunt.

Hello!

Just because there is no evidence that any religion has it right doesn't mean there is no God.

1. But it is a least feasible that the universe has a self-sufficient cause in itself, but even then there could still be god. Of course, he's not the kind of God you pray to for a new bike, or even pray to forgiveness for stealing a bike. God would be more like an epiphenomenon of the universe or maybe something that undergirds causation if you think one state of affairs is insufficient to bring about another state of affairs.
   
   
2. Ummm, I study brains and humans are pretty fucking special
   
   
3. Living things are made of the exact same stuff non-living things are. In fact, if you made a non-living thing that could take in chemicals, synthesize molecules, incorporate those molecules into it's own body and excrete waste products, I would call that a living thing.
   
   I urge you to not completely discard your Christianity. Jesus became a myth creature only later, there was a real jesus who did actually say some profound stuff. So i'd recommend you look at what practices and teachings you had during your Christianity and maintain some of them, but for different reasons than formally. Oh and if you are intellectually curious as to what Jesus actually said and actually believed I'd recommend The Gospel of Jesus, which has an interesting take, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, which is more historically rigorous, and the Five Gospels: What did Jesus really say?, which is a good reference book on the historicity of individual biblical Jesus quotes
   
   Oh and ---> Christian Deism

Absolutely. There's a few I'd recommend. The first is a very basic book. I read it when I was studying early Christianity during my bachelor's (I am a historian and have a BS and an MA in historical studies). It's called Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. It's a very well respected book and many universities across the country use it for intro level courses into textual criticism of the New Testament. (Textual Criticism is historical term for examining the bible through the lens of a historian, looking for history, rather than for spirituality). My best friend who has an MA in theology from Iliff School of Theology read it in one of his first courses. It provides a very easy introduction into understanding what historians have known about the New Testament for the last century.

If that doesn't seem appealing, I can also recommend a number of other books that are awesome too.

Please let me know if you have questions. I am passionate about it and love discussing it with people. I'm also not a pushy atheist. I don't try and de-convert people. I just think that if people want to remain Christian, they should be educated about New Testament history.

The Society of Biblical Literature (the main learned society for the field) launched an educational site this year called Bible Odyssey, featuring the complete contents of the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary and a lot of original content. Have a look through the "Bible Basics" section. Before the site was launched, it was announced that it would include the great, scholarly articles from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, and let us all hope that this will eventually be accomplished.

In buying a Bible, remember that it is a collection of literature written thousands of years ago in exotic foreign cultures; such a journey is not to be undertaken without a guide. You need an annotated edition. The HarperCollins Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Bible are both excellent references. Those Bibles have maps in the back, but the Oxford Bible Atlas may be a useful supplement. If you're not looking to spend a lot, the New American Bible is a great translation with lighter, but still very illuminating notes.

For background on the societies in which the Bible and Christianity were formed, The Ancient Mediterranean World: From the Stone Age to A.D. 600. For studies on what can be known about Jesus from historical evidence, The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders and Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman. (Ehrman has a blog which is worth the subscription; you can also learn a lot from his lectures and interviews on YouTube.)

For the perspective of modern Christians and not just information about the religion's history, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis are two books that are considered classics by many Christians today, across denominational lines. There's a sort of intellectual line running through the two, since Lewis was converted from atheism by reading Orthodoxy (although he did not become a Catholic like Chesterton, as his friend J. R. R. Tolkien had hoped).

Have fun!

I am not a theist btw -- I am a diest at best. I just don't like reading nonsense (in any form).


If you believe that Jesus is 100% mythical, I would like to present Barth Ehrman, a highly respect HISTORIAN who has spent a great deal of his career on separating the myth of Christ from the reality.

He is just one of many HISTORIANS who work on things like this. They have a wide variety of tools for the work of separating myth from history. Are you aware of any of them?

Here are some of Bart's books:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199740305/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421235&sr=8-8

You may also want to check out "the Context Group" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group

Here are some of their books:

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Galilean-Shaman-Anthropological-Historical-Perspective/dp/0227173201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278421621&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peasants-Matrix-Mediterranean-Context/dp/1597522759

Now it's your turn -- please present scholarly and respected sources for the idea that Jesus is 100% myth.


I can help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

http://www.thegodmovie.com

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-Christianity-Challenging-Historical/dp/096892591X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278422009&sr=8-1

These people DO have an ideological ax to grind. I'm not buying it. Are there myths in the story of Christ? Of course. Is it 100% myth with no historical figure behind it at all? No way.

Wonderful to know that you love books about children's afterlife experiences. I will be running a free Kindle promotion for "Snatched Up to Heaven" from April 28th-30th. If you are interested you can download a free ebook on those dates. Here is the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079MWM1M6/

I like C.S. Lewis, and Ravi Zacharias for general thought about Christianity.

If you look into either of them there are some criticism/allegations -- I think Ravi Zacharias made some comment about homosexuality, and C.S. Lewis had some friends in the occult or something. I think about what I read though so overall it doesn't bother me really, just wanted to put that out there so you can look into it if you want before you recommend C.S. Lewis to someone and they go OH BUT HE HAD OCCULT CONNECTIONS! I don't mean it as an endorsement or apology in any way, just putting it out there. What I have read from both of these authors I have enjoyed and found thought-provoking.

I was also really intrigued by Richard Perry's "Idiot's Guide To The Last Days" which is about Christian Eschatology (and is not dispensationalist/'pre-trib' btw)
Finally, I think this book could be better edited but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Philip Collins' "Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" which covers the outlines and agendas of various modern/postmodern phenomena like transhumanism and darwinism. I'll say right now, if you aren't looking for a book with a "conspiracy" (sigh) bent, you may as well stay away from it.

>"Most historians would agree on"?? Lol!

That's pretty much what the majority of critical historians believe, yes. Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic ...

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet,
The Historical Figure of Jesus are all very good books on the historical Jesus, easy accessible and mostly stick to the consensus of the historical community.

>What evidence is there for any of this outside of christian scripture? When topic like this arise there are always a few posters who don't seem to understand that a religion's own faith based holy books can't be used as evidence to support a religion's historical claims.

All written historical sources have some kind of bias. Historians are well aware of that. The job of the historian isn't to take everything written in the gospels, or in any other source, at face value. They have to approach it critically so they could find out what really happened in the past.

That would negate faith, which is what God is looking for. And, as already pointed out, God has tried coming to us personally, and also being with us as a pillar of cloud/fire, etc.

Side note: This is an awesome book that a friend of mine was introduced to in seminary. It explains how God has tried every conceivable way of relating to humanity, to find the one way that works. It's a great book for answering the "why didn't God just do X" questions.

With all due respect to psstein's post, I cannot endorse his syntopic problem list. For sure read Goodacre, but read it knowing that it is highly contentious and still not accepted by the majority of scholars. Streeter is a light and easy read, but he is outdated, having written almost 100 years ago. Farmer's theory, too, has few adherents, and the other two are redundant if you just read Goodacre.

My suggestions include first this article. This will quickly get you caught up on the basics.

For books, Pheme Perkins' Introduction to the Synoptic Problem is a great beginner's guide. I heartily recommend it before diving into the particulars of each major theory.

Speaking of major theory, Kloppenborg's Excavating Q is right up there as the most important book on Q. If you want to understand 2ST, start here.

psstein has it covered with Historical Jesus, though I would also recommend Erhman's Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.

For textual criticism, you'll want Metzger's Textual Commentary on the New Testament for sure, but do check out Tov's guide on the Hebrew bible while you're at it. (Older version is cheaper.)

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman

It's been a few years but I recall it being pretty enlightening at the time. I never really bought most of the critisism of Aslan's book. It might be because both this book and Aslan's had kind of the same take - Jesus as a figure far outside of the mainstream and more a Revolutionary than a Shepherd. (Speaking of Shepherds - if you want to enjoy a completely non-Historical but insanely funny story of Jesus, try Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal.)

>Seriously, if that is true, you guys are doing a terrible job. Kind of kidding.

I wholeheartedly agree, not kidding. The Church might have the true doctrine, but it has a long way to go when it comes to reaching outside the traditional cultural boundaries of the Church. Sometime between the Schism and the Ottoman/Western Captivity, we lost the missionary spirit that characterized the first millenium of Christianity.

>Growing up in Catholic religion classes, I had similar arguments made about Revelation and Rome as well as the "it's all symbolic" handwave to explain everything away and it seemed to make sense until I read Revelation. It may indeed contain symbolic language, but even if that is so it does not match the destruction of Rome, Israel or anything historic.

Do you think I haven't read Revelation? It makes sense to me. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is not just describing literally what will happen in the future when Christ returns.

>Bending over backwards still doesn't make it fit. Reigning over the earth for example, just look around at the earth. If this is the reigning described in Revelation that we place forward into the Millianal kingdom, there is something wrong. Jesus is not ruling the earth with a rod of iron.

The Revelation is very hard to understand, and it is the only book in the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments) that the Orthodox do not read liturgically in some capacity. I find Orthodox scholarship on the Revelation to be very edifying and I suggest you check some of it out. Hey, this one is even free on Amazon! The fact that not everybody is a Christian or whatever doesn't matter. Theologically, the Kingdom is here, since we make the Kingdom present in every Liturgy. The words that begin every Eucharistic service in the Orthodox Church--"Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."--denote that we are entering the heavenly Liturgy which the angels serve continuously before God. The fact that some are not in the Kingdom is irrelevant to the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven is made present (anamnesis or "remembering") every single day in Orthodox churches and monasteries around the world.

>Or the plagues/bowls/trumpets - there is nothing in history that meets the description that God lays out for John. So is God exaggerating or being inaccurate or did it not happen yet?

I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm sure there are Orthodox homilies that argue that it has all been fulfilled. A lot of the more esoteric stuff is also taken by Orthodox to be references to liturgy--and make no mistake the Apostles celebrated liturgical Eucharists.

>People may not agree with the reading of the Scripture, but it comes from the place of trying to accurately understand what does not fit in the Preterist viewpoint, not a misunderstanding.

I'm not questioning anybody's motives. But as I am an Orthodox Christian, you have to understand that I do believe that most of the world's Christians have got something wrong, even if they are 99% correct.

>BTW - the description of a lost distinction is simply inaccurate. The protestant viewpoint, mostly, has the dead without Christ raised at the end of Revelation with the Great White Throne judgment.

I have never heard a Protestant talk about Hades and Gehenna. The prevailing view seems to be that the "saved" go to Heaven when they die, the "unsaved" go to Hell, and the Second Coming is only for those who are still alive (Rapture/Tribulation/Millenial Kingdom as opposed to the Eternal Kingdom). The eschatology I have heard from every Protestant I have conversed with, except a couple Protestant "proselytes" who spend more time in Orthodox churches than their own, is utterly at odds with the eschatology espoused by the Church. I can't blame anybody for this; the Latin authors began to use inferus/infernus ("Hell") for both Hades and Gehenna very early on, and the Latin Fathers began to lose the distinction as early as the 5th century.

That is a nice, eye catching cover. I don't normally go for a lot of the books posted here due to bland covers (not fair I know, but the interesting cover gets the reader). Lens flare probably wasn't needed but hey I looked it up.

You should know that when you search "Head Games by Kevin Alex Baker" in amazon, this is result number 2.

But yeah, color me interested.

I'm Amill, so take recommendations with a grain of salt:

Premill: A Case for Historic Premillenialism by Craig Blomberg, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture by George Eldon Ladd

Postmill: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison, The Millennium Loraine Boettner

Amill: The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema, The Promise of the Future by Cornelis Venema

>That blog has already been dismantled elsewhere in this thread

If that was so, then it would be easy for you to respond to the arguments. I'm still waiting (I know you won't though).

>A non-peer reviewed blog that has already been ridiculed in this very conversation is not proof.

Since when do you care about peer review? That's a bit hypocritical. Regardless, everything that the author has written is standard scholarly consensus. I gave you a blog because I know you won't read a book. But it looks like you won't even read the blog. Regardless, here is a peer reviewed book, which goes over many of the same arguments, but in much, much more detail. Though, I realize you won't ever read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409583853&sr=8-1&keywords=jesus+apocalyptic+prophet

But since you won't read that either, let me give you just one argument to respond to:

Our earliest sources have Jesus being born in Nazareth--a small, hardly populated village of zero significance. However, Jewish prophecy said that the messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem. And in fact, our later sources are shown to have changed Nazareth to Bethlehem, as to help Jesus appear to fulfill the prophecy. So here is the question: if Jesus was entirely made up, why would the Jews who made the story up say he was from Nazareth, since that is not what was predicted by the prophecy? What is more likely: that he exited, and was born in Nazareth, or that he didn't exist, but the Jews who made up the story decided to make the story not conform to their beliefs? And not that it matters, but this is the same argument that convinced Christopher Hitchens that Jesus was a real person.

Also, you forgot to answer one of my earlier questions. Please do so. Would you agree that you know more about this topic than all the historians on earth who disagree with you (despite never having even read a single book on the topic)?

So a few things first. Aslan's Zealot is not, in any way historical scholarship. It's pop history that is mostly dismissed among actual historians. Similarly, O'reilly's book is likewise almost useless since he is a journalist, not a historian. While both provide some interesting facts (mostly taken out of context) neither actually present an understanding of the historical Jesus as understood by historians.

Several I'd recommend are:

Ehrman, Bart's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium
This book is written by one of the world's most well-respected historians on Early Christianity. This is also the very first book I had to read in graduate school on the historical Jesus and it's engaging and easy to read for non-historians. It also presents the view that the historical Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet in the proper context -- which also happens to be what the vast majority of historians believe about the historical Jesus. Ehrman is also agnostic (like myself) but he doesn't attack religion.

Crossan, John Dominic: The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant
This is another excellent book. This book like, Ehrman's attempts to pain a proper contextual understanding of the historical Jesus, but does it in a different light -- he focuses on who the man was rather than what his primary preaching message was.
Sanders, E.P.: The Historical Figure of Jesus
I'd only recommend this one if the other two have been finished. It focuses on Judaism and Christianity and the dynamics of the historical Jesus after he died and the effects he had on his early followers.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or if I can help in any other way.

You're playing armchair historian without actually studying the history. Christianity existed throughout the Roman empire in many different forms before the Roman church basically got rid of all other forms of Christianity. You had gnostics, you had marsionites, you had ebionites, etc. Again, I'd recommend you educate yourself about Christianity from a historians perspective and not pretend like you know how to be a historian for this one thing that you just happen to feel strongly about. I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X

It's a very accessible, easy read.

The bible itself is more evidence than most people have in the ancient world. Most people who come up with this idea that Jesus never even existed put Jesus to a much higher standard than other historical figures.

I recently studied this issue, and the books I read to help me were Jack Deere's Surprised by the Power of the Spirit and Wayne Grudem's The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Pro) and John MacArthur's Strange Fire and BB Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles (Con). Of those, suprisingly MacArthur's was the most helpful. Strange Fire speaks very directly to your impressions of New Age spirituality in the charismatic movement.

First let me say I would very much recommend you listen to the Bahnsen vs Stine debate. Greg Bahnsen wrote the book (literally ) On presup.

Presup essentially is the belief that all forms of reason depend on the existence of the Christian God.

so then, in order:

1 The Christian world view is, based on my personal inspection, the only sound and coherent worldview.

2 Yes they can, and the Christian world view can explain why this is the case, unfortunately other worldviews cannot.

3 No it is not. There's nothing wrong with questioning your beliefs, however if you are a presupasitionalist who's questioning your beliefs based on reason then you've effectively just proved the existence of God again.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.com

amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I have actually been wondering if JBP might know about this book (or have something to do with it): The Sign Of The Son Of Man

It just came out and talks about a lot mistranslations/misinterpretations in the Bible, like the global flood not actually being global and actually consistent with modern scientific findings (it even says where the flood must have taken place which no one has ever been able to pinpoint or prove - and says that Noah was actually a Chinese emperor) and the same with the Garden of Eden - has a map of where it was and birthdates of both Adam and Eve consistent with modern scientific records. Mainly it covers biblical numbers and how they are consistent with the numbers found in our solar system to point to Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, as well as a prediction for the second coming which the book asserts is in 2036 !! It's actually pretty compelling and convincing. Talks about when the antichrist will come to power and in what year Christianity will be outlawed worldwide (revelations). All sooner than you'd think! Certainly some brainfood - but I'm wondering what JBP would say about it...Anyone else read this book yet??

I want to buy one of those bibles to see what that paper looks like. Something like this is more what I had in mind

From this site using 4.4x3 inches pages and 600 pages the paper needed to get 0.8 ounces is 7.5 g/m^2

And 2.3kg of rise is better from my point of view that a thousand bibles.

Let's just start with one claim: If I am wrong on this one, stop reading, that means I'm a liar, or I'm mistaken.

'ALL scholars, believing or unbelieving, agree that Rome is the 4th empire.' See the 2010 series. Dan 11/12 The Unfinished Business of History (time 7:37--context is 6:00-7:57). Also see 2010 Dan 7-8 pt 2 at 2:38.

Anyone who has read even a handful of scholars on this point knows this is not true. Go to Amazon. Find a book 'Complete Guide to Biblical Prophecy' by Miller (conservative, bible believing scholar.) https://www.amazon.com/COMPLETE-GUIDE-BIBLE-PROPHECY/dp/1624162231/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510789384&sr=1-1&keywords=miller+bible+prophecy He discusses how there are two competing theories about the identities of the empires. On page 150 there is a chart describing this. (Amazon has a 'look inside' feature when you click in the upper right corner of the book.)

Here's another--Boice, Expositional Commentary on Daniel, p 126. Daniel, Boice (conservative) p 126 (notes ch 9) https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Expositional-Commentary-James-Montgomery/dp/0801066417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510789329&sr=8-1&keywords=james+montgomery+boice+daniel
--in order to avoid predictive prophecy, liberals date the book in 165 BC, and make the Greek empire the 4th. All of the empires would therefore have come on the stage by the time of the book's writing.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/2.2_Goldingay.pdf This is a conservative scholar, who discusses this issue in the 2nd paragraph.

Unfortunately doing a web search for 'Daniel 4 empires' may not yield results...people who make websites about Daniel typically hold to the conservative Christian position. But, you probably will be able to find proof. Look at Wikipedia for example, Four Kingdoms of Daniel, in 'Schools of Thought.' (right above 'Roman Empire schema')
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_kingdoms_of_Daniel

If you go to any decent sized library, they will have one volume bible commentaries, guides, handbooks...if you look at the sections on Daniel 2 and 7, they will all tell you the same thing. Some scholars see Rome as the 4th empire, some see Greece as the 4th empire. This is impossible to miss.

I am not arguing that Greece is the 4th empire. All I am saying is that there is a disagreement among scholars, and there are two main views. That's it. Some Xenos teachers somehow have missed this. I can't imagine how. They NEVER mention that many (actually I think most) scholars disagree with the 'Rome as #4' view. (If they did, they would provide only the weakest arguments, like they have done for the late-date, such as the '3 Greek words' argument.)

Why is this important? The answer to this is in the quote in the quote from Boice above. Mainline scholars date Daniel (not the book in its entirety, but its final form) at about 165 BC. No one dates it later, even as much as a decade later. Therefore if everyone, including mainline scholars, actually agreed with the 4-empire schema of Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome, then Rome is one of Daniel's 4 dominant empires. Daniel thus would have clearly predicted the ascendancy of the Roman empire. Rome was not the dominant power in the 160s; Greece was. I think Rome became the dominant power about a century later. (To further verify this point, see the 2006 Daniel 2 teaching at 1:03:40. He argues the same exact point I make here.)

Now, are there good arguments to be made that Daniel predicted the future? Yes. But, none of them are as good as 'It is 100% certain that Rome is the fourth Empire'...which is clearly not true. Now, if everyone, even late-dating scholars who don't believe in prophecy, agree that Rome is the final empire...what other conclusion could be made? Daniel predicted the Roman empire.

This is eloquently put. To add to the point of learning from freethinkers I would like to recommend some reading material. First, I would advise becoming familiar with skepticism. The ideal text for this is The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. In order to educate yourself on comparative religion (as far as monotheism is concerned) I would recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Third, specifically regarding Christianity and more specifically the NT I would go to Bart Ehrman. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Hope this helps anyone trying to inoculate themselves to misinformation.

> still hold post-Jesus.

Why wouldn't God's blessings still hold post Jesus? Jesus was a fulfilment of what the Old Testament was all about but the promises made to Israel are forever. If you are interested you should check out Joel Richardson's book that goes into way more detail than you'll need to put to rest the first 3 things you pointed out - https://www.amazon.com/When-Jew-Rules-World-Really/dp/1938067711

I like Bart Ehrman too. His book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is good.

Maurice Casey is another deconverted Bible scholar who wrote a very detailed book Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching.

Monty Python's Life of Brian also has good insights :)

Technically the stuff that the Celts and other Europeans did was not shamanism, though the term is frequently used more widely these days.

For the Celtic side, this might be useful.

There are too many different European traditions to give useful guidance there.

Here's a really good book on exactly this question. Note: it's written by Bart Ehrman, former evangelical, now agnostic. He's a well respected theology professor though.

I recommend you read Dr. Bart Ehrman if you are interested in this subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X

A while ago someone lent me a book that really helped me firm up my views on the matter: Four Views.

I strongly recommend it.

This book is pretty good. It gives the 4 views and then each writer critiques the other views. It's not traditional debate form but one of the few books where there is a rebuttal.

Hitch could have even thrown in the incompatibility of Jesus' teachings and capitalism.

On Hitches points in that video, heres a good read:

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X

A great book to start with is Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium . Or you could try Paula Fredriksen's From Jesus to Christ. Either one is an excellent introduction to the subject with a good guide to how we can glean information about ancient figures like Jesus from our usually biased sources. Unlike Carrier, both are non-Christians but without the crippling anti-Christian bias that warps Carrier's work. Always beware of ideologues.

Specifically,

>Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth.

A real flesh-n-blood person. Not a divine being.

Read all about it here

has anyone read this? https://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Day-Must-Wait-Witnesses/dp/1936411237/

The apocalyptic prophet model first came into vogue with Albert Schweitzer's seminal Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906. It has become the majority view in modern critical scholarship (though not a universal one). basically it's the view that Jesus is best understood as a prophet who was predicting an imminent and radical intervention of God into the natural world. Jesus framed this intervention as a coming "kingdom" and believed (according to this theory) that basically God was going to come and smite the enemies of Israel, restore the Davidic monarchy and initiate the Messianic age. He thought this was literally going to happen within his own generation, so basically (to put it bluntly), the theory is that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet,

Some major scholars who defend this view include Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium) E. P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, JP Meiers' massive Marginal Jew series, Dale Allison (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet), and Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. There are many others.

There are some who propose other views, though, like the Zealot theory already mentioned, and the "Sapiential Kingdom" (basically Jesus as a wisdom teacher and social transformer) proposed by Crossan and Funk.

I think
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman could be what you are looking for. The author tries to answer the question: approaching things as a historian, what can we say about the life and teachings of Jesus. There's also a series of Teaching Company lectures that cover the same material.

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman, secular New Testament scholar.

>Jesus' weapon is his word.

Even if this is accurate, you are still admitting he was implying that he was a weapon that was going to divide families, and change the social order of the Jewish religion.

As a apocalyptic preacher, this fits in with his statements like Luke 11:23 "He who is not with me is against me". as well as the metaphor of the temple splitting in half when he died.

So it seems clear he was preaching revolution, regardless of violent intent.

If you want to understand some of the criticism against the character of Jesus, this book may be interesting.

>as he and the large majority of his followers were until the 3rd century AD.

Not really true, early Christians were persecuted yes, but they also were very antagonistic towards the pagan temples and libraries, and once they gained political power, they quickly eradicated them.

> Erhman's main point is that Jesus and his followers were Apocalypticists.

Are you sure that was the main point of "Lost Christianities"? I read it in 2007 and don't have my copy accessible right now, but I found this interview with Ehrman about the topics covered by the book. It talks about alternative Christianities such as the viewpoint of Marcions, Ebionites, and Gnostics.

Is it possible you're thinking of "Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium", by the same author?

>Of course that's not the only viable translation...the purpose of posting that verse was to remind/establish the claim of corruption and that the translation implying it has backing from the other verses of the Quran.


It is about corruption if I agree with your translation. If we go with the other translations it's about establishing Mohammed's prophetic credentials and continuity with previous Scriptures.

>If you accept that there is historical evidence for corruption in the Bible and that they twist/abuse the interpretation then what is your issue with that translation?

1. We have multiple translations that don't add what Sahih international does, which raises the suspicion that it is adding it to serve its theological needs.
   
2. This is just a basic error of logic or not listening to what I said: the fact that I think the Bible has problems doesn't mean that I think that the Qur'an says that the Bible is lost or it doesn't contradict certain Islamic theological claims.
   
   
   >The claim wasn't it was lost forever so you are arguing against something that wasn't even claimed again.
   
   You're going to sit here and say to me that Muslims don't claim that the Injil is lost?
   
   And yes, I don't think that the Qur'an ever says that the books it describes are lost. That's my entire point!
   
   
   >Which fits very well with the unknown authors of the Bible messing with it, likely to convince Jews and force Jesus to fulfill various prophecies. 2:75 is reasoning that if a party of them heard Allah's word before and tampered with it even though they understood it, why would they believe in what is simply more of Allah's word?
   
   I already dealt with this here:
   >The Qur'an will that "there is a party of them who distort the book with their tongues" (Q3:78) (note that this is not the textual alteration form of tahrif -of which there are four) but it also says that there is a party of the People of the Book who are upright and follow the revelation and do not sell the book for a miserable gain (Q3:113, Q3:199). What are they following if it's all lost?
   
   The basic point remains: there is no global loss. Some people who know the context distort it.
   
   The verse never situates this in the time of Jesus btw.
   
   
   >Who said they are gone?
   
   Muslims. Muslims are the ones who claim that the Injil is not the Injil that we have but is lost.
   
   and you. Did you not say:
   >Yes we can as nobody has the Gospel in the first place
   
   How is that different from the Gospel being lost?
   
   > Once again you ARE arguing as if the Quran claims all of it is lost, which doesn't even make sense as the verse right there says there is a party of them or in the other verse "So woe to those" or "woe to their learned people" not to mention the verses already posted. The translations with parts of the message would obviously be considered still there as it's not like the message is completely different especially as regards Jesus words, but then you get into interpretation.
   
   I mean, I don't think that the Qur'anic author thinks they're lost, given that he told them that Mohammed was in those Scriptures. I think Muslims have had to say that they were totally lost because, well, Mohammed isn't in Jewish and Christian scriptures, any that we have anyway.
   
   
   I think the Qur'an thinks that Jews and Christians still have them and that's a problem since their Scriptures as we know them don't back him.
   
   
   
   >Of course it matters, if it's true/false then we'll have to rethink our whole approach and in reality if it really didn't matter then this never would have been brought up.
   
   I've explained to you my position.
   
   >The Quranic claim isn't all that different than what historians claim. If we look at it in general it's claiming there has been tampering to the previous scriptures. That verses are being twisted, which is a bit more subjective, but Jesus pbuh words vs the doctrine is contradictory and has been demonstrated more than enough on this sub.
   
   Accepting that the Qur'anic claim coincides with one particular historians' claim is not the same thing as accepting the rest of the claims of the Qur'an or its credibility.
   
   The issue is why should I trust the Qur'an here either, when it contains stories that are even older and just as legendary, unless I just stipulate from the beginning that it is the word of God?
   
   The Bible was compiled later than claimed, sure. It was edited, sure. But the point is that the Qur'an tells them to judge by their books and the books that we know they had are not the books that back Qur'anic teachings.
   
   moreover, you want to cite the scholars here on Biblical editing or corruption but not so much when it says that the Christian books that share miracles with the Qur'an are the older, heretical ones.
   
   
   
   
   
   >What do you mean "their structure is not as doubted"?
   
   When we say "the Bible" or "the Torah" or "New Testament". By the sixth century we know what books are in the Bible/Torah/New Testament, we have manuscripts of those books and so on.
   
   If you said: we don't have a 400BCE copy of Genesis...you'd be right.
   
   But, by the time of Mohammed, we know what these books are like. So when Mohammed is telling people to judge by books they have...we know those books don't support his claims.
   
   
   >The books are lost claim is a strawman. Which verse(s) are you using to claim the Quran says they are lost? Your claims are contradictory at this point especially when you just posted about "alteration" mentioned in 2:75.
   
   So your tactic is to take my argument, agree and then complain that I am strawmanning a claim that you made (no one has the Gospel)?
   
   Have you lost the thread?
   
   >Which scholars? The kind that push blatant liars or willful ignorance as mentioned by Ehrman? It seems pretty obvious that if he meant in his lifetime he wouldn't be talking about another to come.
   
   Ehrman's problem is with fundamentalists. You take his criticisms of them to mean that he has a problem with biblical scholarship generally and that's just false.
   
   Ehrman himself is one of the scholars who dates Mark at 70AD and Paul at 50AD no matter what he says in his debates with fundamentalists so you should take the issue up with him as well if you now want to claim that he's a blatant liar.
   
   You may not know this, but he wrote an entire book titled: Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium where he posits that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher expecting the imminent end of the age and that people like Paul also expected the new world within their lifetimes.
   
   The man you are citing disagrees with you.