New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by ABuddhist »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:04 am
ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:53 am the only noteworthy thing that the historical Jesus did was get crucified - even though they argue this from different angles.
This is surely true for Parvus, but for Gmirkin the case is different. I think, from personal communications, that he is not so minimalist. He seems to have found his historical Jesus in the secular sources, also. I can't say more, what I want to point out now is that he is not minimalist à la Parvus, hence it is better not to place both in the same field.
Fair enough.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Hipster Troll imitated Luther Blissett Project?

Post by billd89 »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:39 am Apparently in order to support a historicist view, Russell writes:

Large groups of people believe and promote the most unbelievable ideas. As a relevant example, America is currently in the grips of an autocratic / neo-fascist movement seeking to undermine American democratic institutions that is fueled in part by a set of viral conspiracy theories known as QAnon. These theories are just plain nuts, but almost one in five Americans (15-20% according to various polls) believe in them, including 56% of Republicans. On Nov. 2, hundreds of QAnon believers gathered at Dealy Plaza, where JFK was shot, to await the predicted appearance of JFK Jr, who died in a 1999 plane crash, but who they believe is still alive. Faced with his non-appearance, some put out the theory that Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones was actually JFK Jr, because it would really be hard to distinguish the two of them in a police lineup, and JFK Jr had such mad guitar skills.

The point being, that reality and common sense has little to do with what people believe. Although QAnon originated in American fringe theories, one can point to substantial evidence that Russian internet trolls picked up and amplified the QAnon theories and helped make them uber-popular (the same was they amplified anti-Vaxxer theories and other potentially divisive topics in 2016 in order to polarize America on multiple fronts). Outside interference aside, America is fertile ground for such theories, and we have members of Congress elected to office for supporting QAnon lunacy. Ultimately, this might be a significant factor in the failure of American democracy that is currently threatening us here in the states. My point being that unbelievable theories of stunning irrationality spring up and proliferate and fuel mass movements in human societies of every era, down to the present.

There is a plausible case that the 4Chan troll who launched this Bad Joke on Amerikkka was inspired by or copying the Italian (anarchist) culture-jamming activists of the Luther Blissett Project.

I am also not the first person to note the similarities w/ Illuminatus! and Church of the SubGenius. The Dallas founders cite the JFK Conspiracy theories as a major inspiration for their project. But then, this place sometimes reminds me of a unironical Bob Dobbs love-fest too.

Not to threadjack, so I started a Topic on a different branch.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:02 am I forgot to mention: there is room for a historical Jesus in Russell's analysis. A HJ is offered as having some explanatory power for his view of the two witnesses.
For what it is worth, Gmirkin and Parvus have together firmly pushed me into the historical Jesus camp (even though I still appreciate Carrier and Doherty for opening my eyes about the defects within mainstream biblical scholarship) because they have addressed opposing views respectfully and honestly while admitting (in common with Carrier and Doherty) that the gospels' narratives do not make sense as events nor as recounting events behind the earliest Christian literature. If only all such responses to mythicism were so polite and willing to question assumptions.
How ironic. Yes, I have felt the same invitation from both towards the historical Jesus view. I can't say I have been led into it just yet, but I am certainly open to it. Most definitely. There is more I want to read about Revelation, first, and I need to take some time to think through Russell's points.

Who would have ever thought that the Book of Revelation might lead one to the historical Jesus!
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

Correction to the above: replace "the historical Jesus" in the last line with "a historical Jesus"
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by ABuddhist »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:06 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 1:02 am I forgot to mention: there is room for a historical Jesus in Russell's analysis. A HJ is offered as having some explanatory power for his view of the two witnesses.
For what it is worth, Gmirkin and Parvus have together firmly pushed me into the historical Jesus camp (even though I still appreciate Carrier and Doherty for opening my eyes about the defects within mainstream biblical scholarship) because they have addressed opposing views respectfully and honestly while admitting (in common with Carrier and Doherty) that the gospels' narratives do not make sense as events nor as recounting events behind the earliest Christian literature. If only all such responses to mythicism were so polite and willing to question assumptions.
How ironic. Yes, I have felt the same invitation from both towards the historical Jesus view. I can't say I have been led into it just yet, but I am certainly open to it. Most definitely. There is more I want to read about Revelation, first, and I need to take some time to think through Russell's points.

Who would have ever thought that the Book of Revelation might lead one to the historical Jesus!
For what it is worth, I confess that religious biases play a role in my acceptance of this view, no less than they play a role in the materialist atheist Tim O'Neill's acceptance - although not because I do not want to be lumped in with fools (Although Jonang Buddhists and Nichiren Buddhists and Dhammakaya Buddhists provoke similar revulsion from me that I express more politely).

See, both the mainstream biblical scholarly view and the mythicist view can be slotted within different paradigms in which Jesus can be compared to a Buddhist master. Jesus as itinerant, impoverished, sometimes violent and aggressive preacher, can fit within the Buddhist tradition of Tilopa and other Mahasiddhas (who are not accepted as worthy within my sect of Buddhism, but at least were not Jonang, Nichiren, or Dhammakaya Buddhists) or even Nichiren (the apocalyptic prophet-preacher who founded the Nichiren Buddhist tradition). Similarly, as I have repeatedly said, a Jesus who is a heavenly saviour god is no different in function (although different in origins and role!) from Amitabha Buddha. Both models can attract people to Christianity. But a Jesus whose only noteworthy deed was to get crucified upon the Earth is not worthy of respect insofar as he is less obviously a saviour and did not give allegedly profound teachings.
Last edited by ABuddhist on Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:27 pm. . . Tim O'Neill' acceptance - although not because I do not want to be lumped in with fools . . . .
just as an aside, when Trump came along I did a bit of a study on narcissism. recall some of those checklists -- unable to grasp another's perspective, belief that all others focus on them, bullying, etc etc etc .... -- we see those attributes in this forum, too, don't we, and after a certain k expressed his belief that i was fixated on his every post.... well, i just had to get out of that one ;-)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:27 pm But a Jesus whose only noteworthy deed was to get crucified upon the Earth is not worthy of respect insofar as he is less obviously a saviour and did not give allegedly profound teachings.
A seditious Jesus had to be a preacher, too, hence, put bluntly, you can't refer to Russell the view of "a Jesus whose only noteworthy deed was to get crucified upon the Earth".

No problem in referring it to Parvus, however.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

I would invite Russell to make it clear why he writes so in answer to ABuddhist:

There are several points in my careful line of argumentation that you have missed. Revelation reflects a Jewish Christianity that did not view Jesus through the lens of the gospels, which were not written at that time (ca. 70 CE). The idea that Jesus was a teacher is a late idea peculiar to the later gospels and is not reflected in Revelation, which represents an earlier apocalyptic Jewish Christianity that saw Jesus as having been slain, “dead and come to life again” (Rev. 2.8; to be read in parallel with Rev. 11.8, 11-12), presently in heaven (Rev. 5.5-6, etc.) like the son of man in Daniel, and soon to return to triumph over the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom. This is pre-Gospels, so your references to the “Gospel Jesus”, “teaching ministry”, “Jesus’s preaching” completely miss the point. The early Jewish Christian snapshot of a militant entirely nationalistic Jesus in the book of Revelation is incompatible with the wishy-washy teacher and Pauline savior of the later gospels.

...given that an anti-Roman message had to be preached by a seditious Jesus wanting to raise an earthly theocracy.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by Giuseppe »

Neil, can you ask to Russell about why he writes (see my post above):

The idea that Jesus was a teacher is a late idea peculiar to the later gospels and is not reflected in Revelatio

...when Josephus describes the various messianists, Theudas, "Egyptian", Judas the Galilean, Atronges, etc, as clearly preachers in primis. Isn't a preacher a "teacher" of some kind?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: New thoughts on the Book of Revelation

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:40 am Neil, can you ask to Russell about why he writes (see my post above):
I think it more appropriate for you to ask him. But as for your point about a rebel leader necessarily being a preacher or teacher, I don't believe that. People can share ideas and commitment to a cause without any of them, not even their leader, being a teacher or preacher of any kind.
Post Reply