Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

As Georgios Sidirountios says, the early Christians didn't pose merely a threat against the Pax Deorum, but against the same Pax Romana.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:34 amWell, by presenting Nero/the Roman Emperors as wicked, demonic beasts, and by allegorically conflating Rome and Babylon (a city whose defeat is presented as a good thing within the Jewish scriptures over all - excepting Ezekiel), the Revelation to John is implicitly anti-Roman. Explicit anti-Roman sentiments would have gotten the text and its communities of believers severely punished.
It may be that Giuseppe and I are talking past each other. When he writes about "early apocalypticism being nationalistic, xenophobic" and that is shown in the Book of Revelation, then I'd think evidence for this would be signs of nationalism and xenophobia within the texts, i.e. to fight against the Roman government now. But as I replied in my first response to Giuseppe, early Christians like Paul and Justin Martyr didn't seem to have a problem being part of the Roman system -- other than of course the major issue of being killed for not worshipping the Roman gods!

From reading the links Giuseppe provided, I see that it is thought that Revelation is the product of either/both Messianic Jews and Messianic Jewish Christians. So I understand the idea that they would think that the Heavenly Jerusalem would come down and establish a Jewish Messianic government to rule the earth, wiping out all those who need to be wiped out, which obviously includes the Romans. But there is no sense of needing to fight back against the Romans right now, which is what I'd expect from a nationalistic and xenophobic text.

And why any of this leads Giuseppe to the idea of implying necessarily a historical Jesus is :consternation: :confusedsmiley:
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:12 am As Georgios Sidirountios says, the early Christians didn't pose merely a threat against the Pax Deorum, but against the same Pax Romana.
That's nonsense. Christianity either evolved or was literarily (sic) in the slip-stream of Pax Romana.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

In my view (and Gmirkin's view I think), if a Christian text symphatizes with the Zealots of the besieged and expugned Jerusalem (see Gmirkin's comments for the argument), then that Christian text is evidence of Jewish-Christians going deliberately against the Pax Romana, and not only against the Pax Deorum.

And this relatively early, in 70 CE.

By anti-Pauline Jewish Christians who were probably the last followers of the Pillars.

It is begging the question to think that I should show evidence of Christians who "fight back against the Romans right now", when Revelation was written with the war already ended.


Even if part of Gmirkin's argument is that the two witnesses of Revelation died probably as Zealots in a Jerusalem expugned by the Romans.

It is begging the question to mention the late pro-Roman Justin.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:47 pm In my view (and Gmirkin's view I think), if a Christian text symphatizes with the Zealots of the besieged and expugned Jerusalem (see Gmirkin's comments for the argument), then that Christian text is evidence of Jewish-Christians going deliberately against the Pax Romana, and not only against the Pax Deorum.
Fair point.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:47 pmAnd this relatively early, in 70 CE.

By anti-Pauline Jewish Christians who were probably the last followers of the Pillars.

It is begging the question to think that I should show evidence of Christians who "fight back against the Romans right now", when Revelation was written with the war already ended.
For me, that would be evidence for "xenophobia" and "nationalism". If there is other evidence, I'm happy to view that.

I have no dog in this fight. I'm just interested in the evidence showing early Jewish Christians being xenophobic. It's certainly possible. Just want to see the texts.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

Georgios Sidirountios's thesis is available here: there is a chapter arguing for early Christian texts having particular hostility against the Greeks as people inter alia (meaning not all the Gentiles, but the ethnic Greeks).
Sidirountios
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2024 3:14 pm

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Sidirountios »

Dear Giusepe, thank you for looking at my work.
Regarding Gmirkin, I have much respect for his work on the formation of some OT material, but I am not aware of anything he might have said about Zealots. Any reference?
To MrMacSon I should say that according to my finds some Early Christians must have been persecuted because of their involvement in the long lasting revolts against the Roman authorities. There was no Pax Romana in the Middle East from the first year the Romans arrived there up to the third and last Messianic revolution in the second century CE. Christianity did come out of Galilee, the epicenter of many revolts. Pontius Pilate invaded Galilee with his army for a reason. To examine the emergence of any religious or other movement in history, but outside historical context, simply is nonsense. The fact is that the vast majority of Early Christianity experts have not been through the available primary sources on the history of the region where Christianity emerged. The analysis of the primary sources is a very time consuming process which requires massive training, many sacrifices. Only a very small minority of scholars find the time and the power to embark in serious research. Most scholars simply re-arrange the works of other contemporary to them historians in order to be liked by them and receive acceptance and promotion. An entire educational system, generation after generation, is training most historians to repeat and accept the works of their professors, without themselves investigating and juxtaposing the primary sources. We assume that earlier professors did do the work, but the bitter truth is that in many topics they did not. We learn history mainly from secondary rather than primary sources, from people who became historians not in order to help mankind move forward but in order to help themselves.

Coming back to Gmirkin, who did make a tremendous discovery through his analysis of the primary sources, where is his recognition from the academic establishment? How many professors do understand how important Gmirkin is? The last time I examined what he did was back in 2015.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

Sidirountios wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 12:55 pm I am not aware of anything he might have said about Zealots. Any reference?
his next book will be titled, if I remember well, Jesus and Josephus, and obviously we all are expecting it!
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:02 am Georgios Sidirountios's thesis is available here: there is a chapter arguing for early Christian texts having particular hostility against the Greeks as people inter alia (meaning not all the Gentiles, but the ethnic Greeks).
Giuseppe.... the above link does not work.... Do you have a new link?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Does the ʺearthly kingdomʺ hypothesis imply necessarily a historical Jesus?

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 6:04 amthe above link does not work.... Do you have a new link?
I had only that, until time time ago.
Post Reply