[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: 4 Big Myths Of Book Of Revelation By John Blake, CNN (CNN) – The anti-Christ. The Battle of Armageddon. The dreaded Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. You don’t have to be a student of religion to recognize references from the Book of Revelation. The last book in the Bible has fascinated readers for centuries. People who don’t even follow religion are nonetheless familiar with figures and images from Revelation. And why not? No other New Testament book reads like Revelation. The book virtually drips with blood and reeks of sulfur. At the center of this final battle between good and evil is an action-hero-like Jesus, who is in no mood to turn the other cheek. Elaine Pagels, one of the world’s leading biblical scholars, first read Revelation as a teenager. She read it again in writing her latest book, “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation.” Pagels’ book is built around a simple question: What does Revelation mean? Her answers may disturb people who see the book as a prophecy about the end of the world. But people have clashed over the meaning of Revelation ever since it was virtually forced into the New Testament canon over the protests of some early church leaders, Pagels says. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories “There were always debates about it,” she says. “Some people said a heretic wrote it. Some said a disciple. There were always people who loved and championed it.” The debate persists. Pagels adds to it by challenging some of the common assumptions about Revelation. Here are what she says are four big myths about Revelation:: 1. It’s about the end of the world Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end. Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended. She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos in present-day Turkey. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter “He would have been a very simple man in his clothes and dress,” Pagels says. “He may have gone from church to church preaching his message. He seems more like a traveling preacher or a prophet.” The author of Revelation had experienced a catastrophe. He wrote his book not long after 60,000 Roman soldiers had stormed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., burned down its great temple and left the city in ruins after putting down an armed Jewish revolt. For some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was incomprehensible. They had expected Jesus to return “with power” and conquer Rome before inaugurating a new age. But Rome had conquered Jesus’ homeland instead. The author of Revelation was trying to encourage the followers of Jesus at a time when their world seemed doomed. Think of the Winston Churchill radio broadcasts delivered to the British during the darkest days of World War II. Revelation was an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem. “His primary target is Rome,” Pagels says of the book’s author. “He really is deeply angry and grieved at the Jewish war and what happened to his people.” 2. The numerals 666 stand for the devil The 1976 horror film “The Omen” scared a lot of folks. It may have scared some theologians, too, who began encountering people whose view of Revelation comes from a Hollywood movie. “The Omen” depicted the birth and rise of the “anti-Christ,” the cunning son of Satan who would be known by “the mark of the beast,” 666, on his body. Here’s the passage from Revelation that “The Omen” alluded to: “This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.” Good movies, though, don’t always make good theology. Most people think 666 stands for an anti-Christ-like figure that will deceive humanity and trigger a final battle between good and evil. Some people think he’s already here. Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation didn’t really intend 666 as the devil’s digits. He was describing another incarnation of evil: The Roman emperor, Nero. The arrogant and demented Nero was particularly despised by the earliest followers of Jesus, including the writer of Revelation. Nero was said to have burned followers of Jesus alive to illuminate his garden. But the author of Revelation couldn’t safely name Nero, so he used the Jewish numerology system to spell out Nero’s imperial name, Pagels says. Pagels says that John may have had in mind other meanings for the mark of the beast: the imperial stamp Romans used on official documents, tattoos authorizing people to engage in Roman business, or the images of Roman emperors on stamps and coins. Since Revelation’s author writes in “the language of dreams and nightmares,” Pagels says it’s easy for outsiders to misconstrue the book’s original meaning. Still, they take heart from Revelation’s larger message, she writes: “…Countless people for thousands of years have been able to see their own conflicts, fears, and hopes reflected in his prophecies. And because he speaks from his convictions about divine justice, many readers have found reassurance in his conviction that there is meaning in history – even when he does not say exactly what that meaning is – and that there is hope.” 3. The writer of Revelation was a Christian The author of Revelation hated Rome, but he also scorned another group – a group of people we would call Christians today, Pagels says. There’s a common perception that there was a golden age of Christianity, when most Christians agreed on an uncontaminated version of the faith. Yet there was never one agreed-upon Christianity. There were always clashing visions. Revelation reflects some of those early clashes in the church, Pagels says. That idea isn’t new territory for Pagels. She won the National Book Award for “The Gnostic Gospels,” a 1979 book that examined a cache of newly discovered “secret” gospels of Jesus. The book, along with other work from Pagels, argues that there were other accounts of Jesus’ life that were suppressed by early church leaders because it didn’t fit with their agenda. The author of Revelation was like an activist crusading for traditional values. In his case, he was a devout Jew who saw Jesus as the messiah. But he didn’t like the message that the apostle Paul and other followers of Jesus were preaching. This new message insisted that gentiles could become followers of Jesus without adopting the requirements of the Torah. It accepted women leaders, and intermarriage with gentiles, Pagels says. The new message was a lot like what we call Christianity today. That was too much for the author of Revelation. At one point, he calls a woman leader in an early church community a “Jezebel.” He calls one of those gentile-accepting churches a “synagogue of Satan.” John was defending a form of Christianity that would be eclipsed by the Christians he attacked, Pagels says. “What John of Patmos preached would have looked old-fashioned – and simply wrong to Paul’s converts…,” she writes. The author of Revelation was a follower of Jesus, but he wasn’t what some people would call a Christian today, Pagels says. “There’s no indication that he read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or that he read the gospels or Paul’s letters,” she says. “….He doesn’t even say Jesus died for your sins.” There is only one Book of Revelation There’s no other book in the Bible quite like Revelation, but there are plenty of books like Revelation that didn’t make it into the Bible, Pagels says. Early church leaders suppressed an “astonishing” range of books that claimed to be revelations from apostles such as Peter and James. Many of these books were read and treasured by Christians throughout the Roman Empire, she says. There was even another “Secret Revelation of John.” In this one, Jesus wasn’t a divine warrior, but someone who first appeared to the apostle Paul as a blazing light, then as a child, an old man and, some scholars say, a woman. So why did the revelation from John of Patmos make it into the Bible, but not the others? Pagels traces that decision largely to Bishop Athanasius, a pugnacious church leader who championed Revelation about 360 years after the death of Jesus. Athanasius was so fiery that during his 46 years as bishop he was deposed and exiled five times. He was primarily responsible for shaping the New Testament while excluding books he labeled as hearsay, Pagels says. Many church leaders opposed including Revelation in the New Testament. Athanasius’s predecessor said the book was “unintelligible, irrational and false.” Athanasius, though, saw Revelation as a useful political tool. He transformed it into an attack ad against Christians who questioned him. Rome was no longer the enemy; those who questioned church authority were the anti-Christs in Athanasius’s reading of Revelation, Pagels says. “Athanasius interprets Revelation’s cosmic war as a vivid picture of his own crusade against heretics and reads John’s visions as a sharp warning to Christian dissidents,” she writes. “God is about to divide the saved from the damned – which now means dividing the ‘orthodox’ from ‘heretics.’ ’’ Centuries later, Revelation still divides people. Pagels calls it the strangest and most controversial book in the Bible. Even after writing a book about it, Pagels has hardly mastered its meaning. “The book is the hardest one in the Bible to understand,” Pagels says. “I don’t think anyone completely understands it.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Meh. She's lifting this from other scholars. Nothing new. Pagels makes a few weak stabs to tie together her previous writing on the gnostic texts, probably just to plug her old books. Much of this reads like an article designed to introduce these old topics to the young postmodern post-Christian reader. A good example is how Athanasius is described. Athanasius played a key role in suppressing the major Arian heresy and in issuing the first list of the N.T. canon, then helping to resolve the conflicts between the East (Orthodox) and West (Rome). The East was the great Christian empire, Byzantium. We see this as skewed due to how successive bishops of Rome (popes) represent their own history and authority. I'm surprised you would post an article quite this corny. It actually conveys more false information than truth. One assumes that was the writer's objective. The question remaining is whether you are that ignorant or whether you think the rest of us are.
I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. Thanks for playing.
Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. You post threads that you don't even read, just to piss religious people off because it amuses you? Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that.
Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that. Actually it's generally the more unhealthy types who DON'T do that. He posts all kinds of articles from a wide array of view poinhts mostly for others to debate. Is one only allowed to post articles here that they agree with?
Sure... and black is white and up is down. He posts all kinds of articles from a wide array of view poinhts mostly for others to debate. He has disclosed that intent to you? Or are you making that up? He posted above, in plain English, why he posted the article and posts others like it. You must have missed that. Is one only allowed to post articles here that they agree with? You'll have to ask Stone about that, I don't own the forum. But if I did... I'd boot the emotionally troubled young man, and you along with him.
He has disclosed that intent to you? Or are you making that up? He posted above, in plain English, why he posted the article and posts others like it. You must have missed that. You'll have to ask Stone about that, I don't own the forum. But if I did... I'd boot the emotionally troubled young man, and you along with him. So it's okay for you to make a decision on his intent based on his posting of this one article, but not okay for me to ascertain his intent from the hundreds of other articles he posts? You sure are getting real creepy. Just use the Bozo.
No, it's OK for me to make a decision on his intent, based on HIS OWN ADMISSION in post #4. I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun. Thanks for playing. Brian S posted on 2012-04-02 18:32:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply You sure are getting real creepy. And you sure are just as loony as ever.
Here's your post. You post threads that you don't even read, just to piss religious people off because it amuses you? Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that. So does that mean he is baiting people with every article he posts like you insinuated?
Geeeeze. Are you serious? I didn't insinuate anything. The dumbass himself stated, and I quote, "I did even read the goddamned thing as I don't subscribe to any of 'you peoples' biblical babble. Tweating you snake-handling, tongue-talkers is what it is all about and way too much fun." Then I stated, and you'll note that I stated this as a matter of fact, not an insinuation, "Something in your brain is misfiring. Healthy people don't do stupid shit like that." Now, did Brian S post this thread to piss off Christians? The answer is YES! He's "Tweating the snake-handling, tongue-talkers", what ever the fuck tweating means. Does he do that with every thread he posts? I have no idea, I don't read most of his threads and I never stated anything like that. I hope this explains things in a way that you can understand. Because if you still don't understand, I really don't care enough to explain it to you further.
#22. To: We The People (#20)
Do you ever do anything other than come over here to whine and complain?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|