Elaine Pagels against the Revelation (E. Pagels contra el Apocalipsis) -Obama RFID Chips (subtitles)

Uploaded by inminentefinal on 06.05.2012

Here we are again in Revelation Explained channel.
Today I want to address two issues that emerged in recent days,
and I thought it important to treat them.
Since the bulk of the exposition, explaining what Revelation reveals, said in the messages that have a number, right?
The 14 key messages ...
But now I wanted to take care of two developments that have occurred in recent days;
both had massive spread in different regions of the world, but have produced great concern.
I would say that both developments were concerned in a reverse direction.
The first concern that I wanted to refer, which affected especially the people of God, Christians,
aware, or more or less aware of what the prophecy says, has to do with the publication of a book by a woman named Elaine Pagels
author of a book called "Revelation: visions, prophecy and politics in the book of Revelations."
this, in English, is something like: "Revelations: visions, prophecy and politics in the book of Revelations."
The launch of this book was thoroughly covered by CNN, coincidentally, perhaps causally, just during Holy Week.
So this is already one month.
I thought it was not so urgent devote myself to the explanation of this book, or his criticism ...
I will speak from what CNN says, on its website, CNN in Spanish, did not read the book, I will not read it.
I will not waste time.
The first thing I think to say about this book and of such approaches is that they are already very popular approaches to biblical scholars.
In particular, scholars more inclined to disbelief, say, are "literary scholars" of the Bible,
This, in theology, is called Historical-Critical School, also called "Higher Criticism."
Applying literary methods, similar to those German scholars of the eighteenth century, early nineteenth century, applied to the texts of Homer, Hesiod, of all the authors of the classical repertoire, especially ...
analyzed, picked apart, made a clearing;
and adjudicated many times to different authors, different specific men (say), different fragments of the same work,
by analyzing the language of terms, syntax, and others.
Well, this method was implemented, starting in mid-nineteenth century (E. Renan, D. Strauss, J. Wellhausen), to biblical texts,
and resulted in this thing called the "Higher Criticism" or "Historical Critical Theory."
Which, as we say -and I emphasize- is a way of studying the scriptures that is based in unbelief,
that part of the idea that the biblical writings are not (or do not have to be) inspired by God.
That is, we see in what path are marching, those who are added to this approach, to this way of reading the Bible.
I am referring to the four main points that the author cites, referring to the Apocalypse, to plant the disbelief.
And this has led, as I say, concern many brothers in faith.
And so I find it interesting to take it as "button shows" what is the historical-critical approach.
Just to show that there is "nothing new under the sun" and so you can see that the author is also quite insufficient information on the matter.
She speaks a little ...
Obviously, she began to analyze the Apocalypse and applied it to their context and forget the other biblical texts,
She missed many previous studies that have been made around the same theme, - why, she says, it is difficult to sustain.
The four points that she calls "four myths" that have been imposed throughout the story in the book of Revelation.
The first point says that "it is a myth that Revelation speaks of the end of the world."
The first thing she says, is that "the author was called John,
"But was not necessarily the apostle John, the disciple of Jesus," "but a devout Jew and exiled."
She says the author, whom she credits the book (not the apostle John, but who she believes was the real author of Revelation), witnessed a catastrophe.
She says: "He wrote his book shortly after 60 000 Roman soldiers whipped Jerusalem in AD 70,
"Burned the Temple in Jerusalem and left the city in ruins, after ending armed Jewish revolt."
So, the first date that the author makes the writing of Revelation after 70 AD.
Keep this in mind.
She says: "The author was trying to encourage followers of Jesus Christ, in a time when the world seemed to be condemned."
"The book was an anti-Roman treaty, and a kind of war propaganda."
"The message? God will return and destroy the Romans, who finished with Jerusalem."
"The primary objective of the book (as the author says in his book), is Rome."
"It is deeply angry, and mourning for the Jewish war and what happened to these people."
Of course, we should clarify that there are many biblical proof that the author of Revelation is the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Obviously, he is a Jew [he uses Hebraisms], handles the same language;
and there is a term used very often the book of Revelation, which also appears in the Gospel of John,
and that is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (which are those of Matthew, Mark and Luke: I clarify this for the least savvy biblical terminology).
For example, for Jesus is the Word, and the Lamb of God.
The Lamb "who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
This appears in the Gospel of John, quoting the words of John the Baptist, and reappears in Revelation
in a passage that visit in a few minutes about another matter.
So the author detects something: that Rome is the great enemy, Rome is the seat of evil, according to Revelation.
We agree with that statement.
Only that, the author says that is the Rome of the year 70 AD, according to the first hypothesis -
Bear this in mind: 70 AD, would have been the date that the Apocalypse was written.
Second "myth" that she claims to destroy.
"The 666 is the mark of the Devil."
She says no. That the book did not refer to the number of the Devil ...
- First error: the number of the Beast, of the Antichrist, not of the Devil.
They are two similar entities, similar but not identical: They resemble.
I always say that the Antichrist and the Devil, will be like "the stick and the son."
But are not the same thing.
The author should make a little deeper exegesis of apocalyptic text.
But she says she "does not speak of the Devil's mark" - never mind us forgive that - but the Emperor Nero.
Then she says - this is quite unusual - "In 1976, the horror film" The Omen "frightened the public.
"Also, some theologians, who began to run into people whose vision of the apocalypse came from a movie."
This is unusual.
For the futuristic approach, which is the approach that sees the Antichrist as being come, like a man,
as an overall ruling, which will be accompanied by a global empire
of a new Europe, a New Roman Empire, which has to be reborn ...
That vision is prior to the year 1976!
I do not know whether to attribute this to an error, or theological ignorance by the author.
In fact, Christians in the early twentieth century, did the same reading as we do here in Revelation Explained,
reading is futuristic, were labeled as "fundamentalists."
After that term, since the 90's, when the enemy of the United States became the Arabs,
the term "fundamentalism" is thought mainly to discuss the Islamists.
But the word "fundamentalist" was invented to mention those who think like us about the end times.
So, for those who take a reading futuristic, that we owe nothing to the film "The Omen".
I want to clarify because the author believes, sincerely and in good faith, that, right?
I will not believe she lied ...
Always one can think of the capacity for error.
Every researcher can make mistakes, of course.
She says: "The Omen" is the birth and rise of the Antichrist, who would be recognizable as having "the mark of the Beast", 666, inscribed in the body. "
"Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, compute ...".
Well, the well-known biblical passage.
Pagels argues that the writer of Revelation, not really talking about the 666 as the "Devil's number"
but as the Roman emperor Nero.
"The first followers of Jesus Christ, including the author of Revelation, particularly despised in the arrogant and mad Nero,
"Who is said to illuminate the garden, had been burned alive followers of Jesus Christ."
It is a historical reality the persecution begun by Nero against the Christians!
And there is no "myth"!
I'm surprised she not know what it says Tacitus, Caius Cornelius Tacitus
famous historian, perhaps the most celebrated roman historian,
who speaks loudly about the unjust persecution, unfounded, of Nero against the Christians, after he had set fire to Rome.
But another thing I wanted to make:
She had said that Revelation was written after the year 70 AD, is not it?
After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
Now she gets a second date. Note you this!
She says that Revelation was written to speak ill of Nero.
She says that "as the author of Revelation could not name Nero, Jewish numerology used to spell his name Imperial."
Serious problem! Nero died in 67 after Christ.
Whereupon, the author assumes two different dates for the writing of Revelation.
You notice the following: the historical-critical, supporters of the theory of higher criticism, always try to give context to the texts.
As for the reading of Revelation, are part of something that we will see below, which is the preterist reading.
They believe that Revelation was written according to a context, and that everything would have been at that time, more or less.
Now let's talk about what are the different aspects of reading Revelation.
To be clear, too, which Apocalypse Explained - this modest channel - "takes over" that presents an interpretation of Revelation.
Revelation is a text full of symbolism, and that obviously leads to a multitude of possible readings.
We say: "This is our reading. We give such biblical reasons."
"We have our way of thinking, and argue about that."
But obviously, we know and recognize that there are other ways ...
Pagels, as a good historical criticism that is attached to the preterist reading.
She believes that Revelation is related to a particular past time.
But a problem arises: there are two dates for the writing of Revelation.
We continue with the "myths" she says to unravel about the Apocalypse.
She says: "The book's author was not a Christian."
This is quite striking, because he said before the book was made to encourage followers of Jesus ...
But here it says that the author of the book "was not Christian."
Here is the third myth that she intends to tear down, that the author was a Christian.
She says: "The author of this book hated Rome,
"But also made fun of another group, a group of people whom, today, you would call Christians."
"There are secret passages in the life of Jesus,
"That were removed by decision of the early leaders of the Church, since that did not match their purposes,"
explains the academic and author of "The Gnostic Gospels."
Attention to this fact!
She is an advocate of the Gnostic gospels.
Not the first time I encounter a person with these characteristics, this "mind style", say, defending Gnosticism.
Why is defended Gnosticism?
Because Gnosticism offers a pleasant reading for the intelligentsia (for "free thought").
I remember seeing, even in Ortega y Gasset, in a text that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ (lectures titled: What is philosophy?)
suddenly makes a defense of Marcion.
This is because the Christian faith has many elements that to an intellectual, say,
not have a basic commitment to the faith of Jesus Christ, are shocking many of the things the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
For example, this of the Trinity, that that God is three persons, who are one God.
This is not acceptable to the human mind.
The human mind prefers to "cut", right? Make a cut, remove the divinity of Jesus Christ, to eliminate the divinity of the Holy Spirit
and stay with a single god, that would be a "force", an "energy", a "positive influence", or "first cause" and "prime mover".
Or intellectualizations.
To them it is easier to assimilate the faith of the Gnostics, that the faith of Jesus Christ,
which requires - in some ways - a waiver of logic, intellect and common sense.
In this, Pagels also coincides with the more normal that the unbelievers scholars tend to follow
She is an advocate of Gnosticism.
She says: "The author was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the Messiah, but did not agree with the message that some apostles preached ..."
- Interesting nuance.
She says: "This new message emphasized that the Gentiles would become followers of Jesus, without adopting the requirements of the Torah,
accepting women leaders, and marriage between members Gentiles ... "
"At some point, the author of the book of Revelation calls Jezebel, the woman leader of a religious community,
"And one of the churches that accept Gentiles called" synagogue of Satan. "
This is not biblically based.
Is this an over-interpretation of Pagels.
Nowhere in Revelation suggests that the heathen should be rejected the plan of salvation.
Not at all: in fact, Pagels is overlooked chapter 7,
Revelation mentions where "people of every nation, kindred, tongue and nation" worshiping the Lamb in his presence.
Many things go wrong, in the reading that this author does.
Is inconsistent, especially with its subject, which is the book of Revelation.
She should stick to reading Revelation, should study it well, either: instead of starting to draw conclusions, "at random".
She says: "The author of Revelation was a follower, but not exactly what you would call a Christian."
"Not even mentions that Jesus died for our sins."
We have documentation to attack it, huh?
Revelation 1:5 reads:
"Grace and peace to you who is and who was and who is to come, and the seven spirits who are before his throne;
"And from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead ..."
He died ...
"And the ruler of the kings of the earth. He who loved us and washed us from our sins by his blood ..."
So did die for our sins, and clearly said, here!
Revelation 5:6:
"And I looked, and saw between the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, stood a Lamb as if slain ..."
A sacrificial lamb! He died for our sins! ...
I repeat: Elaine Pagels did not make a profound exegesis of biblical symbolism in Revelation.
All this, as is known, is a reference to the Jews Passover Lamb sacrificed ...
When he says that Jesus Christ is the Lamb Slain, besides using the same terminology - say - which is used in the Gospel of John,
which means Revelation is that Jesus died for our sins.
That and nothing else, is what that title means.
Revelation 5:8:
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb;
all of them harps, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
And they sang a new song, saying Thou art worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals;
for thou wast slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation ... "
Impossible to speak more clearly!
Revelation 5:12:
"Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise."
And if Elaine Pagels has the patience to listen to all the passages of Revelation in which mention is made of lamb to refer to Jesus Christ,
Revelation 5:13. Revelation 6:1. Revelation 6:16. Revelation 7:9. Revelation 7:10. Revelation 7:14:
"I said, Lord, thou knowest. And he said:
"These are they which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
I repeat: If Elaine Pagels does not understand that this is referred to sanctification operated by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross,
is that she does not understand anything and did not read anything.
She did not read it necessary, did not read the Bible, before sitting down to write his book now as sponsored by the mass media!
We: Revelation 7:17. Revelation 12:11. Revelation 13:8. Revelation 14:1. Revelation 14:4.
Revelation 14:10. 15:3. 17:4. 19:7. 19:9. 21:9. 21:14. 21:22, 23.
(That is, Chapter 21, verses 22 and 23.)
21:27. Chapter 22, verse 1. Chapter 22, verse 3 ...
So, is there or no apocalyptic passages that speak of Jesus Christ died for our sins?
It is very clear.
I think that the author lacked a little exegesis of the text.
Thus is launched to make such unfounded claims.
He says the "fourth myth" is that there is only one book of Revelations, there is only one Revelation.
"In the Bible there is no other book like Revelation,
"But there are many books like it that were not included in the Bible."
"The exclusion of these books was the decision of the pastor Athanasius."
So, what the author does here is to attack the credibility of the Bible, the Revelation in particular,
resorting to the argument most popular and generally normal to discredit something, that is:
"There are many like him."
"There are many books, many works like this."
"Then why do we have to pay attention to this particular work, if there are so many like that who have spoken of the same,
"And perhaps have been more or less suited to the realities of the times?"
What she does is put the Apocalypse on an equal footing with other apocalyptic books that have been excluded from the Bible.
That's typical of skepticism.
Skepticism says, "There are many opinions, so none is true ..."
No? The familiar trope of Agrippa: "From the difference of opinion ..."
"Like all opinions are different, we need not adhere to any. Not think of any."
Another interesting thing about this argument of Elaine Pagels, is that it is resorting to what I usually call a narrative procedure.
There is a narrative, science has its narratives, science has its "myths".
Science has stories, has stories, and need figures ...
this same kind of figures one can see in the theater, melodrama, in soap operas,
- For example, appears on the scene here a "bad guy".
This is effective on an emotional level.
Not a good argument, say, from the point of view of logic, philosophical ...
One might even say it is a fallacy "ad hominem".
But hey, do not get into this field, we need not do so.
Just want to point out that, for example, Nietzsche did the same in his "Antichrist"
(Nice name to baptize one of his last books before falling into madness ...)
He stood as a "bad guy" the apostle Paul.
He said: Early Christianity was nice, I liked him. Just who "came Paul, and contaminated with Judaism" above.
Then this procedure to create a "bad guy" has always effective in the order of the emotional.
And this author cunning moves to discredit Revelation.
We see how many resources she goes!
She says that "Athanasius was a religious leader who advocated the Revelation 360 years after the death of Jesus Christ ..."
She adds: "Athanasius was so fiercely during his 46 years as pastor, who was deposed and exiled 5 times."
"Basically, I was in charge of the formation of the New Testament, removing books that he considered heretical."
Athanasius is an interesting character in the first stage of the Christianity.
I leave it there. I will not make "advocatus Atanasii".
But Athanasius was of key importance to combat certain heresies that before, during the year 90 AD,
were opposed by the gospel of John.
For example, this heresy that denies that Jesus Christ is God.
Turning point in terms of Athanasius.
Just wanted to make the intent of the author to include this critical
and by concentrating the focus of the readers of his book on Revelation, in the person of Pastor Athanasius.
Then the author concludes, in conclusion: that "Revelation is a book that continues to divide people."
Pagels refers to him as "the most bizarre and controversial book of the Bible."
No doubt that is the strangest, and certainly that is also the most controversial.
For reasons we have had occasion to go see,
but we will have the opportunity to focus more when we talk about the different aspects of reading Revelation.
She says: "The book is the most difficult to understand the Bible. Do not think anyone will understand it fully."
This is true. Only when fulfilling the prophecies of the Apocalypse
can be understood in the specific references in the book, which as we know, is full, crammed with symbols.
"Passing on clean" Elaine Pagels ...
According to the author, Revelation does not speak of what he says about: not talking about the end times.
Second: What the book anticipated, already occurred.
Even before the announcement came, because she says that Revelation speaks of Nero,
when Nero was already dead, when it was destroyed Jerusalem.
If Revelation was written, as she says, in 70, Nero had died some years earlier - was no longer the Imperator.
Third, the author was anti-Christian. It was not what we would call a Christian, but an enemy of Christians,
who - according to the author: I do not know where to get this interpretation - the author calls "Synagogue of Satan."
She said the author "did not even believe in the sacrifice of the Redeemer."
We see that also has no merit.
Fourth hypothesis: "There are many other similar books."
"One among many," argument to spread skepticism among potential readers of Revelation.
And fifth, the author says the book of Revelation was included in the canon, was included in the Bible by the work of a discredited character.
For work of a "bad guy".
So, Elaine Pagels, and his attack on the Apocalypse, we see what comes next.
It comes from the historical-critical theory. Try to sow skepticism.
And strikingly, the very, very significant is that CNN has advertised this book just at Easter.
Something that leaves a lot to think about what intellectual property, material,
about who the investors, what are the powers that dominate the mass media to set agenda
not only in North America and Central American region which is close to the United States,
but throughout the world.
Because it is known what the influence of CNN.
The story of what happened from September 11,
the media in Latin America and around the world have followed to the letter that made the CNN line.
So pay attention, and know very well identify as Christians, what we eat,
what certain groups, certain interests and certain spiritual forces want to pour into our ears through the media.
I also wanted to refer to a subject that has little to do with this,
which was the second reason for concern that in recent days,
mass media have given to believers, the semi-believers, believers semi-literate.
What is this rumor that has spread, as to the "Law Obamacare", right?
Health law, health reform promoted by the Obama administration in the United States.
It has spread so much in social networks, via YouTube, for example, is not it?
Is visited video, showing this production: cutting Argentine television channel called "Crónica TV".
It's true what they say: it is a "tabloid", is a tabloid channel.
But we need not think that what is broadcast on a "yellow" channel, a popular channel,
such as "Crónica TV" in Argentina, is necessarily false.
It need not necessarily be false.
It can be as true which comes from one channel "tabloid" as false and unfounded which airs on Channel serious.
Because there is no journalist who is free from what, in journalistic parlance, is called "buy rotten fish."
There scoops, rumors, there is good news without being checked, are published by the media,
sometimes so shocking thing,
and sometimes also by the cruel necessity of journalists from having to always deliver a new material to justify his salary in his job, right?
A material issue, but it is also necessary to remember.
We say, that "Crónica TV", in Ascar Anabela program, invited a man she calls the "Fool of the Microchip".
Anabela is an interviewer that her program often leads to so-called freaks characters;
often sit in his chair at her table, characters that stand out for some special quality.
This time it was a man she calls "The Fool's Chip".
But when she heard a rumor that circulated in English, many American websites,
that Obama would impose a mandatory microchip, there, "he lit the lamp" to Anabela, and said: It's the scoop of the century!
"What says the Fool of Microchip's true."
Personally, I think Anabela was genuinely shocked by this rumor - we insist - by a tenuous news - but with some foundation...
Caution: I wanted to put the sign of attention on two things.
1) Do not panic: do not panic, Christians - do not panic anyone.
Obama will not impose the Mark of the Beast. Obama is NOT the Antichrist.
To play the Antichrist, he should have some properties (including racial) that Obama has not ...
The Antichrist will be a Jewish race ... as we say in our channel.
2) But Obama, in his health reform, including as a possibility,
using subcutaneous microchips that include the patient's clinical history,
- But this is a possibility, and for the year 2014.
Not a mandatory microchip, or compulsive, that was going to place people in 2013.
About this law does not speak.
Besides which, remember, is still under review by the Judiciary of the United States,
precisely because it is a law that has some intrusive elements, having features that encroach on civil liberties.
There are even beyond atheistic organizations, people who do not have much to do with Christianity, who would oppose such a law.
Not to mention the Christians, who make up a large percentage of the population of the United States.
3) So paying attention, the microchip in the Law Obamacare?
Yes No cause for alarm.
We know that the Mark of the Beast will be implemented by the Antichrist when he comes, when it appears.
And if you are followers of Revelation Explained, know well that the Antichrist will only be manifest ...
when the Church is "rolled away".
When worn, when transposed, body and soul to the Lord's presence.
the mandatory microchip will be implanted by the Antichrist.
We insist: it is not for alarm.
But it is very interesting that the cultural environment, begin to circulate suspicions, rumors and leaks,
concerning the use of subcutaneous microchip.
Before, it seemed a little eerie.
In fact, in the movie Matrix, as we said in our post on The Mark of the Beast, appears like a nightmare, is not it,
inserted as a cockroach in Neo's navel.
If you remember it well, in the first Matrix, eh?
- My favorite among the three films: the best.
The popular sentiment is changing. The ideas are being installed;
- Little by little is being naturalized, the thing.
It went into circulation the possibility of using these subcutaneous microchips.
That and only that I find interesting in this transpired that broadcast "Crónica TV" which circulated through YouTube,
and through social networks, and a multitude of contacts that exist today, thank God, in the digital world
has reached the ear of many people, and has produced fear.
Fear not. Be careful. Stay tuned. Open your ears.
"You do well to pay attention to the prophecy, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." (2 Peter 1:19).
But do not be alarmed. It is not yet time.
We're still here. And we still have much to be done. There is much to evangelize...