Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dzim77 · 10-31-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Ben,

We are so used to seeing the pascal lamb as a prophecy, type, or pre-figurement of Jesus that it is easy to forget that it originally was no such thing, and still isn't to those of the Jewish faith.

Jake Jones IV

Hi Jake,

The point is that the author of Revelation is saying that Jesus is the Lamb. According to your "Roman War" theory, who would you say the Lamb is?

Quote:

8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."

11Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12In a loud voice they sang:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!"

13Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!" 14The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
-Revelation 6:8-13

jakejonesiv · 10-31-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

I don't see much support for this theory in the book itself. The book is clearly concerning the apocalypse - the end of the world - not merely the war with Rome.

The destruction of Jerusalm and the Temple equated to the same thing in the minds of the apocalyptic group (the holy remnant of Rev. 7:4) that wrote the original version of Revelation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

For example, how would this theory explain:

-the thousand years' reign in Rev. 20
-the 'white throne' judgement in Rev. 20:11-15 in which all those whose names are wrtitten in the book of life enter paradise
-the new heaven and the new earth coming out of the sky in Rev 21 and the passing of the first heaven and earth

As I said above, the orignal version of Revelation was written during the war, but before the final destruction.

What you have mentioned, the victory given by God in the form of eschatological events, is what these people hoped and prayed for. It didn't happen. Rome won, sucks for them; they were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

There is surely something to the proposed context of persecution from Rome, but how do you know it is referring to the war against Jerusalem and not to Roman persecution of Christians? (as the book claims)

there was a little Christian interpolation, but even so,
since Revelation never uses the word "Christian" I wonder how you can make this statement.

Who do you think is the woman of chapter 12?

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The redactor conflated the twelve apostles with the twelve tribes of Israel.

Further supporting my argument here that, if Revelation is an originally Jewish document turned Christian, the changeover required more than a few Jesus or Christ phrases to effect.

Quote:

OF COURSE the Lamb is a pre-Chrsitian symbol of sacrifice! The Passover, the lamb of the Exodus chapter 12; whose blood on the doorfames protected the occupants from the angel of death.

That is not in dispute.

Ben.

dzim77 · 10-31-2006, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I was wondering how Christian Revelations really is. So I looked up all occurrences of Jesus and/or Christ. So, what do you think? It looks as if we can cut out all Jesuses without affecting the story in the least. Could this be a Jewish apocalypse that has been adapted for Christianity, or is that just my wild imagination?

Gerard Stafleu

I think Revelation was written to the seven churches to strengthen them to endure the current and future persecution from Rome. It seems not to progress linearly but rather to jump back and forth from present to past to future events. The main point of the author seems to be to portray the ulitmate triumph of Jesus and the establishment of the New heavens and earth. This would serve to give hope to those Christians being persecuted by Rome.

Notice in the seven letters to the church there are many OT allusions: the lampstands, the tree of life, Jezebel, "he who has an ear..", these OT allusions are all directed to the Christian churches. The allusions continue throughout the book as they are used to depict apocalyptic events.

Since Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of OT prophecy and religion, shouldn't we *expect* a Christian apocalypse to be full of Jewish allusion? If not, wouldn't we be even more suspicious of it's authenticity?

I don't see any solid reason to think that the book was anything other than a Christian work.

dzim77 · 10-31-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The destruction of Jerusalm and the Temple equated to the same thing in the minds of the apocalyptic group (the holy remnant of Rev. 7:4) that wrote the original version of Revelation.

As I said above, the orignal version of Revelation was written during the war, but before the final destruction.

What you have mentioned, the victory given by God in the form of eschatological events, is what these people hoped and prayed for. It didn't happen. Rome won, sucks for them; they were wrong.

So, what you're saying is, according to your theory, the author of Revelation was expecting the end of the world to come during the war with Rome... the white throne judgement, the new heavens and new earth and the destruction of the old heavens and earth were all part of what he expected?

This sounds different from your original argument, but I see where your going with it.

Quote:

there was a little Christian interpolation, but even so,
since Revelation never uses the word "Christian" I wonder how you can make this statement.

John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
-Rev 1:4

Because it's addressed to the churches.

Quote:

Who do you think is the woman of chapter 12?

Jake Jones IV

Seems to be a reference to Israel

jakejonesiv · 10-31-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

... if Revelation is an originally Jewish document turned Christian, the changeover required more than a few Jesus or Christ phrases to effect.
...
Ben.

Hi Ben,

Maybe so.

The Book of Revelation, is similar to the Gospel of Mary in the fact that the resurrected Christ only appears in vision (Rev. 1:9). Christ is only a heavenly figure.

The Servant of Isaiah is of primary importance. The Revelation messanger (nominally Jesus) is identified as the Lamb, from Isaiah 53:7. This imagery is very powerful and goes back at least to the Exodus story.

Unfortunately, almost all Christians read Revelation through the lens of the gospels and whenever they see the Lamb or allusion to the Servant of Isaiah, they automatically see JESUS CHRIST forgeting entirely that these symbols held full meaning before ever the advent of Christianity. The Servant of Isaiah is of course never Jesus except in Christian theologizing. Orginally it pointed the the Holy Remnant of Israel.

The instances that seem to refer to an historical Jesus are instead derived from scripture. "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him, and among them those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the world shall lament in remorse." Revelation 1:7.
Derived from Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10b.

We are discussing the possibility that Revelation was not a book of Christian origin at all. God is not called by his Christian title "Father", and the book is extremely violent and unforgiving and completely out of keeping with an universal love of God for humanity.

It was written by an apocalyptic Jewish sect facing destruction by the Romans about 68 CE. It expressed the vain hope that God would save them. It was then "Christianized" by a redactor who added the
prologue, epilogue, and a few additions within the body of the work.

Please consider that, according to my count, the name "Jesus" appears in only 12 verses in the entire 400 verses of our current Revelation.
1:1 Jesus Christ
1:2 Jesus Christ
1:5 Jesus Christ
1:9 Jesus
12:17 Jesus
14:12 Jesus
17:6 Jesus
19:10 Jesus
20:4 Jesus
22:16 Jesus
22:20 Lord Jesus
22:21 Lord Jesus

Seven of the twelve verses occur in the obviously additional prologue and the epilogue. All the remaining verses in the body of the book refer to the "testimony of Jesus," not Jesus himself. In the majority of the cases, the expression "testimony of Jesus" is used in conjunction
with "the word of God" or "God commandments." Those seem to be the later cosmetic additions, and the text makes perfect sense without them.

According to the existing text, the secrecies are communicated from God with Jesus with an angel to John (1:1).

The original text likely contained only God and the angel. The redactor fit himself and Jesus in an unnecessarily complex chain of transmission.
To be precise, the role of the angel (probably Michael) was replaced with Jesus, but left indicating signs of the original structure behind. The redactor assigned himself the role of the watcher to assert authorship.

The letters to the seven churchs show signs of the amalgamation with a separate document. The observer is twice instucted to write what he sees in a letter and send it to the seven churches, but then the
speaker dictates the letters. This indicates the inclusion of another text within the document.

Please note that the association of the Book of Revelation to the Gospel or Epistles of John rely most heavily on the vocabulary of the seven letters, which formed no part of the original, which resumes with 4:1.

Jake Jones IV

Quote:

I have mislaid my reference for some of the above. Sincere apologies for the omission. I will supply as soon as I can find. i would appreciate the help here. :redface:

jakejonesiv · 10-31-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

So, what you're saying is, according to your theory, the author of Revelation was expecting the end of the world to come during the war with Rome... the white throne judgement, the new heavens and new earth and the destruction of the old heavens and earth were all part of what he expected?

This sounds different from your original argument, but I see where your going with it.

Maybe I expressed myself more clearly the second time. Thanks for your patience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
-Rev 1:4

Because it's addressed to the churches.

IMO that was not part of the original apocalypse. I said that also my first post on this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Seems to be a reference to Israel

Yep.

Jake

Dean Anderson · 10-31-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

It was written by an apocalyptic Jewish sect facing destruction by the Romans about 68 CE. It expressed the vain hope that God would save them.

The text of Revelation seems to indicate immanent destruction and "tribulations", followed by revenge on the oppressors and the building of a "new Jerusalem".

Given this theme, is there any particular reason to think that the text was written when the sect was facing destruction, rather than having been retroactively written after they had been mostly destroyed and being propaganda of the "Look, the oppression we have just undergone was foretold in this document that I have recently 'found' - and it further fortells that we will get our revenge and be victorious in the end!"

The latter would seem to fit the themes of the text better - since in the former case one would expect the themes to be about the destruction being prevented by God, not about the destruction happening but then being avenged by God and his followers getting the last laugh...

hatsoff · 10-31-2006, 05:32 PM

Although I do disagree with the idea that the Apocalypse of John was an adaptation of an earlier Jewish work, I find it interesting to behold the individual references to Jesus: how "Jesus" or "Christ" is almost always mentioned in conjunction with God the Father. It seems to suggest the author may not have believed in the Trinity, which is consistent with the early 95 dating most scholars espouse. Or is that reaching?

gstafleu · 11-01-2006, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

I don't see any solid reason to think that the book was anything other than a Christian work.

I would think that in a "real" Christian work you would find Jesus better integrated into the story. The problem may be that Christianity was not synthesized de novo: it got its ideas somewhere. For example, I agree with Ben that this business of the Lamb's blood saving people for God is pretty Christian, but as Jake pointed out there is a pretty obvious precursor of that idea in Exodus.

So when do we call a work Christian? What really separates Christianity from its precursors? I would maintain that at minimum this is the person of Jesus and the idea of forgiveness/God's universal love. Revelations is weak on Jesus and absent on forgiveness/love.

Furthermore, the Lamb, which seems to give an air of Christianity to the book, has some rather un-Christian attributes. Specifically, it is married (19:7, 21:9). Michael Baigent and Dan Brown notwithstanding, Jesus is generally not seen as married.

So yes, we can find some ideas in Revelations that we also find in Christianity. We also find ideas in Revelations that we don't find in Christianity. And some of Christianity's defining characteristics seem to be absent or at most weakly present. I'm not sure that we can call Revelations Christian on those grounds.

Gerard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2006, 05:32 PM	#29
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Although I do disagree with the idea that the Apocalypse of John was an adaptation of an earlier Jewish work, I find it interesting to behold the individual references to Jesus: how "Jesus" or "Christ" is almost always mentioned in conjunction with God the Father. It seems to suggest the author may not have believed in the Trinity, which is consistent with the early 95 dating most scholars espouse. Or is that reaching?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.