Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-01-2012, 01:25 AM

Quote:

What’s more original to Pagels’s book is the view that Revelation is essentially an anti-Christian polemic. That is, it was written by an expatriate follower of Jesus who wanted the movement to remain within an entirely Jewish context, as opposed to the “Christianity” just then being invented by St. Paul, who welcomed uncircumcised and trayf-eating Gentiles into the sect. At a time when no one quite called himself “Christian,” in the modern sense, John is prophesying what would happen if people did. That’s the forward-looking worry in the book. “In retrospect, we can see that John stood on the cusp of an enormous change—one that eventually would transform the entire movement from a Jewish messianic sect into ‘Christianity,’ a new religion flooded with Gentiles,” Pagels writes. “But since this had not yet happened—not, at least, among the groups John addressed in Asia Minor—he took his stand as a Jewish prophet charged to keep God’s people holy, unpolluted by Roman culture. So, John says, Jesus twice warns his followers in Asia Minor to beware of ‘blasphemers’ among them, ‘who say they are Jews, and are not.’ They are, he says, a ‘synagogue of Satan.’ ” Balaam and Jezebel, named as satanic prophets in Revelation, are, in this view, caricatures of “Pauline” Christians, who blithely violated Jewish food and sexual laws while still claiming to be followers of the good rabbi Yeshua. Jezebel, in particular—the name that John assigns her is that of an infamous Canaanite queen, but she’s seen preaching in the nearby town of Thyatira—suggests the women evangelists who were central to Paul’s version of the movement and anathema to a pious Jew like John. She is the original shiksa goddess. (“When John accuses ‘Balaam’ and ‘Jezebel’ of inducing people to ‘eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication,’ he might have in mind anything from tolerating people who engage in incest to Jews who become sexually involved with Gentiles or, worse, who marry them,” Pagels notes.) The scarlet whores and mad beasts in Revelation are the Gentile followers of Paul—and so, in a neat irony, the spiritual ancestors of today’s Protestant evangelicals.

On Amazon

Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (or via: amazon.co.uk)

sotto voce · 03-01-2012, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New Yorker review

Quote:

What’s more original to Pagels’s book is the view that Revelation is essentially an anti-Christian polemic.

If Pagels writes that Rome became a Christian empire, anti-Christian polemic is hers. Unless the comment is supposed to belong in the Fiction Section.

PhilosopherJay · 03-01-2012, 05:57 AM

Hi sotto voce,

I had to break out my old ice-skates and check my hell thermometer, but I agree that Ms. Pagels is way off on this one.

Revelation was written in 69 CE, just before the Temple was burnt and predicts Jewish victory in the Roman-Jewish of that time. Its just a priestly promise that God is on our side and he's going to kick the enemy's teeth in.

The angel that comes from heaven leading an army to destroy Rome (Babylon) was probably not named Jesus in the original text. When the angel was renamed Jesus is anybody's guess. It could have been 95 CE or 195 CE.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New Yorker review

If Pagels writes that Rome became a Christian empire, anti-Christian polemic is hers. Unless the comment is supposed to belong in the Fiction Section.

Chili · 03-01-2012, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New Yorker review

Quote:

What’s more original to Pagels’s book is the view that Revelation is essentially an anti-Christian polemic.

If Pagels writes that Rome became a Christian empire, anti-Christian polemic is hers. Unless the comment is supposed to belong in the Fiction Section.

The Revelation contains both sides but the empire is Catholic in Christendom holding the copyright to heaven where Christians relax when it is finished in evidence that forever means what it says. So what can they say? "I told you so" when it is too late? or that the very book that brings life must condemn us to die, one way or another, as in the 'Rich man and Lazarus' parable where that concept is clearly defined.

sotto voce · 03-01-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New Yorker review

If Pagels writes that Rome became a Christian empire, anti-Christian polemic is hers. Unless the comment is supposed to belong in the Fiction Section.

Hi sotto voce,

I had to break out my old ice-skates and check my hell thermometer, but I agree that Ms. Pagels is way off on this one.

Revelation was written in 69 CE, just before the Temple was burnt and predicts Jewish victory in the Roman-Jewish of that time. Its just a priestly promise that God is on our side and he's going to kick the enemy's teeth in.

Not 'Give Caesar what is Caesar's,' then. Not, 'Turn the other cheek.' That's an improvement on the supposed Pagels interpretation, but not by much.

Revelation is jam-packed with OT pictorial figure, and attempts to interpret it without good knowledge of that figure are like trying to decipher hieroglyphs with a French dictionary. 'Babylon', using the name of that which egregiously opposed the old Israel, here means that which is spiritually opposed to Christ, to the new Israel; wherever, whenever that may occur.

'After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendour. With a mighty voice he shouted: "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.' Rv 18:1-2 NIV

That cannot describe any earthly location (other than the Mesopotamian Babylon), and neither is it identifiable as prophesied earthly location in the Bible. It must be a pictorial description of hell, therefore. This is interpretation that uses hermeneutic principles, that produces spiritual meaning.

Bernard Muller · 03-01-2012, 09:58 AM

I think Pagel is plain wrong.
Revelation was first a completely Jewish text written around 71. Then it got added up, updated and Christianized around 95.
For more details see http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

sotto voce · 03-01-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I think Pagel is plain wrong.
Revelation was first a completely Jewish text written around 71.

Written for what purpose?

Chili · 03-01-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I think Pagel is plain wrong.
Revelation was first a completely Jewish text written around 71.

Written for what purpose?

He just wants to justify himself and conveniently omits Rev. 14:13 where the saints in heaven [are those] who died to their sin nature [in the Lord] have found rest from their labor and enjoy their good works here now on earth.

He is 'literalist' and totally wrong in every passage he explains.

Bernard Muller · 03-01-2012, 10:59 AM

to sotto voce,
The book was written in 71 (in reality, my deduction after studying it) but the author suggested he had the vision before 70 & wrote about it then. I explained why it was written in my webpage, something about giving hope to the Jews after Jerusalem destruction, letting them expect God will revenge them and inaugurate his Kingdom (on earth) 3.5 years after the holocaust of 70.

Chili · 03-01-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

The book was written in 71 (in reality, my deduction after studying it) but the author suggested he had the vision before 70 & wrote about it then. I explained why it was written in my webpage, something about giving hope to the Jews after Jerusalem destruction, letting them expect God will revenge them and inaugurate his Kingdom (on earth) 3.5 years after the holocaust of 70.

The 3.5 years make reference to purgation that should only take 3.5 years and not fourty for which indeed eternal hope is needed until 'they died nonetheless.'

Notice that the first beast 'came out of the water' and not 'the [old] earth' to say that reason was not part of this 'renewal event' and therefore spend only 3.5 years in Galilee where the purification fire is at.

Oh, and the 7 heads are the fruition of the 7 Cardinal Virtues poised agains the 7 Capital Sins.

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

03-01-2012, 09:58 AM	#6
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	I think Pagel is plain wrong. Revelation was first a completely Jewish text written around 71. Then it got added up, updated and Christianized around 95. For more details see http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html

03-01-2012, 10:59 AM	#9
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to sotto voce, The book was written in 71 (in reality, my deduction after studying it) but the author suggested he had the vision before 70 & wrote about it then. I explained why it was written in my webpage, something about giving hope to the Jews after Jerusalem destruction, letting them expect God will revenge them and inaugurate his Kingdom (on earth) 3.5 years after the holocaust of 70.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.