Ship of Fools: The Apocalypse for Dummies

Thread: The Apocalypse for Dummies Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030149

Posted by Tibi Omnes (# 18608) on :

Anyone have comments on E.Pagel's less waggishly named treatment of the Book of Revelation?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Translation: All green of skin... 800 centuries ago, their bodily fluids include the birth of half-breeds. For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos, for dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.

[ 30. June 2016, 10:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Tibi Omnes, we require English translation of texts posted here. Please supply one and indicate just what you want to put up for discusion.

Martin60, what you supplied is not a translation and is therefore deliberately disruptive. As such it has been flagged to the admins.

/hosting

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Wow, Martin, is leaving the EU that bad? Well, maybe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My apologies Eutychus. Styx?

Posted by Tibi Omnes (# 18608) on :

sorry, that's just my signature; It translates as "see how time flies and life flees,. You are here now, think of your departure, for the soul must go naked and alone to that perilous path.." I'll change my signature to something shorter to avoid this kind of confusion in future.

Posted by Tibi Omnes (# 18608) on :

Since I seem to have been unintentionally obscure, I was asking if anyhow had read and could offer comments on Elaine Pagel's book "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation"

[ 30. June 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Tibi Omnes ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Doh! Of course it's a sig.

And nothing new here is there? Pagels isn't saying anything Rob Bell hasn't popularized for years.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My stupid.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

Have not read it yet, but here is a thoughtful review. Sounds as though it belongs on my "need to read" list.

Posted by Tibi Omnes (# 18608) on :

What most interests me is how far the BoR may be read as of a piece with Pauline Christianity. Pagels makes the very plausible point that the author distances himself and his followers from the Gentile Church, but is this so in the ways she suggests? Do the initial addresses to the churches pillory Pauline Christianity, or, as I think, gnostic heresies?

And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?

Pagels' popularity has something to do with the way she provides not only clear and well written digests of Biblical scholarship, but comes to conclusions that raise no hackles, ever.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Tibi Omnes writes:

quote:
And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?

Presumably ignoring its presence in the Johannine Gospel...

But why the esotericism? Lamb imagery was a theme of first century Jewish writings. In 1 Enoch we even have the image of the Lamb leading the children of Israel out of captivity. (It's in the so-called "Apocalypse of the Animals", a passage sometimes used to show students how apocalyptic writings work). And the imagery does what it says - it "reveals" the true nature of things, events, people etc.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tibi Omnes:
I'll change my signature to something shorter

Please do - we restrict signatures to a maximum of four lines and yours is currently at eight.

If you don't change your signature to one that follows the rules then you risk having it changed for you and your profile locked to prevent it from being edited again.

[ETA - I note that while I was typing that you edited your sig. However, it's still five lines. Could you trim it down by one more please]

Marvin
Admin

[ 30. June 2016, 15:47: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Tibi Omnes writes:
quote:
And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?
Presumably ignoring its presence in the Johannine Gospel...

But why the esotericism? Lamb imagery was a theme of first century Jewish writings. In 1 Enoch we even have the image of the Lamb leading the children of Israel out of captivity. (It's in the so-called "Apocalypse of the Animals", a passage sometimes used to show students how apocalyptic writings work). And the imagery does what it says - it "reveals" the true nature of things, events, people etc.

Exodus anyone?

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tibi Omnes:

And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?

The ritual of atonement by blood sacrifice was practiced in many ancient religions, including of course Judaism. It may simply be a metaphor to illustrate that Christians can find the same sort of absolution and reconciliation through following Jesus that adherents of other faiths find through their sacrifice rituals.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Tibi Omnes:

And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?
The ritual of atonement by blood sacrifice was practiced in many ancient religions, including of course Judaism. It may simply be a metaphor to illustrate that Christians can find the same sort of absolution and reconciliation through following Jesus that adherents of other faiths find through their sacrifice rituals.

That's true (about blood sacrifice and ancient religions). But it ignores the meaning of that sacrifice. If you look at that, the explanation falls apart.

You could say that the (non)-sacrifice of Isaac was the demonstration of that. It was no longer about the appeasing of an angry deity, but the symbolic acknowledging and thanksgiving by giving back a portion of the bounty given. The locus was moved from the death itself to the community meal. Much else, but there's this thing called morphic resonance that can lead you to make all sorts of misclassifications when taken at face value.

Posted by Tibi Omnes (# 18608) on :

Biblical controversies always make my head hurt: everyone has a slightly different idea of how to date texts, key words are defined by instances that may be key but may also just be metaphoric, and of course we all have what we'd like to believe (or disbelieve) to try and correct for.

All that being said, the scholarly consensus dates this book around mid first century, which makes it earlier than most of the NT Books, and Pauline thought doesn't seem to have affected it. So the image of "washing in the blood of the lamb" is difficult to parse precisely in terms of a particular belief, though of course it it relatable to many parallel passages which have been cited above.

The book is also written in pidgin Greek, with bizarre Hebraisms (all those "ands" imitating OT style), some of which are deliberate, others unintentional. It's the onjly Biblical book written in "dialect"!

And it has many startlingly beautiful passages, the overall composition is, from the triple series of afflictions (Seals, Trumpets, Bowls) to the eschatological conflict with Dragon, Beast and Babylon is still terrific after many a reading. It's a very compelling book, and has inspired some of the greatest illuminations of the middle ages.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Tibi Omnes:

And there is the matter of the Lamb symbolism, here introduced apparently for the first time, which includes as description of the redeemed as washed in the blood. This is not yet an explicit Pauline formulation, but if it isn't, what is it? a borrowing from the rites of Mithras? Another mysterious image from this book of mysterious images which we will never get to the bottom of?
The ritual of atonement by blood sacrifice was practiced in many ancient religions, including of course Judaism. It may simply be a metaphor to illustrate that Christians can find the same sort of absolution and reconciliation through following Jesus that adherents of other faiths find through their sacrifice rituals.
That's true (about blood sacrifice and ancient religions). But it ignores the meaning of that sacrifice. If you look at that, the explanation falls apart.

You could say that the (non)-sacrifice of Isaac was the demonstration of that. It was no longer about the appeasing of an angry deity, but the symbolic acknowledging and thanksgiving by giving back a portion of the bounty given.

Sacrifices were offered for a variety of reasons, including not only thanksgiving but also expiation of sin and restoration of divine favor, in both Judaism and other ancient religions. See, for example, the instructions of Leviticus 4 dealing specifically with the procedures for sin offerings, especially verses 32-35.

[ 01. July 2016, 13:07: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

fausto wrote:

quote:
Sacrifices were offered for a variety of reasons, including not only thanksgiving but also expiation of sin and restoration of divine favor, in both Judaism and other ancient religions. See, for example, the instructions of Leviticus 4 dealing specifically with the procedures for sin offerings, especially verses 32-35.

Making a sin offering does not restore divine favour in that way. That would be magic. It makes atonement, which is to restore the relationship to covenantal faithfulness.

Even to this day, the context of doing business in the middle east (though ironically not really Israel these days) is still fairly similar to what is reported as happening when Abraham met the Lord, or rather the angels of the Lord. But in essence, the obligation rests with the resident party to provide for the visitor's material needs. Which would include the slaughtering of animals, the bread, the wine etc. But first, it is essential that all outstanding business is transacted. That would be any trade, but especially the sorting out of any problems or disagreements.

Once this is done, the parties are in agreement, a fact signalled by the holding of the meal. This signals that all sides are in agreement, i.e. they are "at-one", atoned. It's a huge faux pas to skip the meal. Basically, you just don't do it. But this is a context of the atoning of contracts.

So far as sacrifices and sin offerings are concerned, you just don't offer them until you have repented of the sin and sorted out the consequences. This is nicely illustrated in the famous Davidic Misere mei psalm (51), which after all the confessions, entreaties and promises to teach the right way to others have been laid out, acknowledges that now is not the time for sacrifices.

Or even more dramatically, the wonderful rant that starts the book of Isaiah, which has God telling Israel that he abhors their waywardness and desertion, and they are to stop all this sacrificing nonsense. At least until they go away and sort themselves out first.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

I think you're over-thinking this, Honest Ron. Describing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb who has redeemed us by his blood is obviously a metaphor,a figurative analogy. Like all analogies, it draws a comparison rather than asserting a perfect identity between two things. He is not literally a baby sheep who was literally sacrificed in a formal religious propitiation ceremony according to prescribed rites as understood and practiced by an established religious tradition.

As an analogy, I think the comparison to sin-offerings of other religions, and in particular to the sin-offering of lambs explicitly described in Leviticus 4:32-35 is pretty compelling. Of course there are differences, but the parallels are nevertheless also strong. Certainly there are lots of reasons why the analogy is not perfect, but I don't see that the literal discrepancies detract meaningfully from the figurative power of the metaphor.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There are also levels in between metaphor and literal stupidity--one level of which is called "sacrament." It's more than a metaphor when we speak of Jesus' death as a sacrifice or call him the Lamb of God; but we do not look for wool on him.

"Magic" is another such level, but it is not the same thing as sacrament. Magic is under the control of the magician (or so he thinks, anyway); sacrament is tied to the promises of God. As a result it is not available for bringing about whatever results we happen to wish. Magic (at least in theory) is.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0