Revelation (no āsā) doesnāt really have the narrative that āBiblical literalistsā think it does. The Beast isnāt said to be the Antichrist - the āAntichristā isnāt mentioned in Revelation at all, only in John IIRC - a lot of this is coming from Scofield and Darby. People before the 1800s did not believe in the narrative of āthereās a rapture where Christians disappear, the Antichrist takes over for 7 years, all of these prophecies are fulfilled, and the Jesus comes back.ā
Itās basically all made up through connecting unrelated passages in Daniel and Ezekiel. Premillennial dispensationalism is new and not reading the Bible āliterallyā at all.
Guaranteed to have a typo when you nitpick spelling, but that sentence works well when read in a Ricky Bobby voice.
The āRevelationsā thing is a really funny way to pull off the classic atheist power move of knowing the Bible better than a Christian. Great for trolling eschatological TikTok and Facebook accounts.
Could be an Antichrist, could be a natural desire, could be Emperor Nero, could be something else. Being a āBiblical literalistā isnāt really something that makes sense, because at some point you do have to accept that some things are metaphor. The line being drawn is arbitrary, even if āliteralistsā donāt like to admit it. Revelation is especially obtuse and symbolic - though it does make sense if you realize itās probably about Nero and John of Patmos was tripping balls on some kind of psilocybin.
Revelation almost didnāt even make it in the Bible - the Shepherd of Hermas was more popular. I donāt think Jerome liked it.
Yeah - and the fact that the book is weird as fuck is how Scofield and Darby (and later Hal Lindsey, Jenkins and Lehaye etc) were able to convince even people who donāt believe in the Bible thatās itās some sort of hyper specific end times prophecy instead of the more likely reality that itās a bunch of gematria (math magic games) and random symbolism as secret hints that Nero was a dickwad.
When you look at the Bible, how do you separate the āallegorical work[s] of fiction about politicsā to the ones about theology?
Itās almost as if itās a mish mash of various folk stories, history, propaganda (with a ton of tension in the Pentateuch which often does things like repeat the exact same story twice with minor differences because itās clear that thereās being an attempt to reconcile the kingdom of Judah with the kingdom of Israel and or later justify King Davidās more shitty actionsā¦)
Lots of pop theology is completely absent from the Bible. I feel like a random person could read the Koran and figure out the shahada, but even the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, died for your sins and was resurrected doesnāt even peek through until John, which was the last gospel to be written. Pretty sure the Q author and the sayings source thought of Jesus as a prophet - not the Messiah. Most understandings of hell and Satan are entirely Dante and Milton (filtered through pop culture).
Edit: my personal ābeliefā - Jesus was a Jewish political dissident that was martyred by the Roman state. His followers understood him as being the Messiah in a war sense - to lead some sort of revolt against the Romans. Then he just fucking dies and they have to figure out how to cope.
Thereās a bunch of these iterant preacher types during the era - things kinda sucked. The āBabylonian Exileā 2 electric boogaloo. Josephus, kinda the main neutral source to Jesus existing, had participated in a revolt/mass suicide against the Romanās (basically everyone except Josephus killed themselves, and he was like ānahā and had a pretty nice life as a Roman historian). Historians are pretty sure John the Baptist was real, and he was probably one of these types (he bit where he baptized Jesus is very clearly an attempt to be like āhey, if you like this guy he actually liked our guy even more.ā)
So Jesus was probably very anti Roman, and killed by the Roman state as a potential revolutionary leader. Later, Paul (or his forgers) realizes that rewriting some of the theology a bit to be more sympathetic to power might be helpful.
So Jesus was probably very anti Roman, and killed by the Roman state as a potential revolutionary leader. Later, Paul (or his forgers) realizes that rewriting some of the theology a bit to be more sympathetic to power might be helpful.
Isnāt that the gospel of Matthew?
To my knowledge his employer let him rewrite the gospel in a more pro Roman way, possibly to make the religion that was spreading amongst Romans more accesable to them.
Iām curious about how bible literalists that donāt believe in the antichrist interpret that part of Revelations.
Revelation (no āsā) doesnāt really have the narrative that āBiblical literalistsā think it does. The Beast isnāt said to be the Antichrist - the āAntichristā isnāt mentioned in Revelation at all, only in John IIRC - a lot of this is coming from Scofield and Darby. People before the 1800s did not believe in the narrative of āthereās a rapture where Christians disappear, the Antichrist takes over for 7 years, all of these prophecies are fulfilled, and the Jesus comes back.ā
Itās basically all made up through connecting unrelated passages in Daniel and Ezekiel. Premillennial dispensationalism is new and not reading the Bible āliterallyā at all.
Everybody please remember that you do not fuck with the Jesus.
Guaranteed to have a typo when you nitpick spelling, but that sentence works well when read in a Ricky Bobby voice.
The āRevelationsā thing is a really funny way to pull off the classic atheist power move of knowing the Bible better than a Christian. Great for trolling eschatological TikTok and Facebook accounts.
Agreed on the ārevelationsā thing. Once that tidbit sticks in your memory you just see people using it incorrectly everywhere.
Maybe itās a Baader-Meinhof effect thing, but I think itās genuinely a very common mistake thatās very easy to make.
Same with daylight saving(s) time. I hear other detail-oriented people add that S all the time.
Cāmon, Revelation vs Revelations is childās play. Everybody knows the real name is the Apocalypse of John.
I know the rapture doesnāt exist in the Bible but āthe beastā does. What is the beast to literalists?
Could be an Antichrist, could be a natural desire, could be Emperor Nero, could be something else. Being a āBiblical literalistā isnāt really something that makes sense, because at some point you do have to accept that some things are metaphor. The line being drawn is arbitrary, even if āliteralistsā donāt like to admit it. Revelation is especially obtuse and symbolic - though it does make sense if you realize itās probably about Nero and John of Patmos was tripping balls on some kind of psilocybin.
Revelation almost didnāt even make it in the Bible - the Shepherd of Hermas was more popular. I donāt think Jerome liked it.
Thanks for the insight. Iām gonna go with the tripping balls theory cuz that book is weird as fuck.
Yeah - and the fact that the book is weird as fuck is how Scofield and Darby (and later Hal Lindsey, Jenkins and Lehaye etc) were able to convince even people who donāt believe in the Bible thatās itās some sort of hyper specific end times prophecy instead of the more likely reality that itās a bunch of gematria (math magic games) and random symbolism as secret hints that Nero was a dickwad.
So an allegorical work of fiction about politics not actually related to Christian theology?
When you look at the Bible, how do you separate the āallegorical work[s] of fiction about politicsā to the ones about theology?
Itās almost as if itās a mish mash of various folk stories, history, propaganda (with a ton of tension in the Pentateuch which often does things like repeat the exact same story twice with minor differences because itās clear that thereās being an attempt to reconcile the kingdom of Judah with the kingdom of Israel and or later justify King Davidās more shitty actionsā¦)
Lots of pop theology is completely absent from the Bible. I feel like a random person could read the Koran and figure out the shahada, but even the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, died for your sins and was resurrected doesnāt even peek through until John, which was the last gospel to be written. Pretty sure the Q author and the sayings source thought of Jesus as a prophet - not the Messiah. Most understandings of hell and Satan are entirely Dante and Milton (filtered through pop culture).
Edit: my personal ābeliefā - Jesus was a Jewish political dissident that was martyred by the Roman state. His followers understood him as being the Messiah in a war sense - to lead some sort of revolt against the Romans. Then he just fucking dies and they have to figure out how to cope.
Thereās a bunch of these iterant preacher types during the era - things kinda sucked. The āBabylonian Exileā 2 electric boogaloo. Josephus, kinda the main neutral source to Jesus existing, had participated in a revolt/mass suicide against the Romanās (basically everyone except Josephus killed themselves, and he was like ānahā and had a pretty nice life as a Roman historian). Historians are pretty sure John the Baptist was real, and he was probably one of these types (he bit where he baptized Jesus is very clearly an attempt to be like āhey, if you like this guy he actually liked our guy even more.ā)
So Jesus was probably very anti Roman, and killed by the Roman state as a potential revolutionary leader. Later, Paul (or his forgers) realizes that rewriting some of the theology a bit to be more sympathetic to power might be helpful.
Your version makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially to an atheist like me.
Isnāt that the gospel of Matthew?
To my knowledge his employer let him rewrite the gospel in a more pro Roman way, possibly to make the religion that was spreading amongst Romans more accesable to them.