4w ago

And they will willingly embrace it.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

103 comments

Could be an Antichrist, could be a natural desire, could be Emperor Nero, could be something else. Being a “Biblical literalist” isn’t 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 “literalists” don’t like to admit it. Revelation is especially obtuse and symbolic - though it does make sense if you realize it’s probably about Nero and John of Patmos was tripping balls on some kind of psilocybin.
Revelation almost didn’t even make it in the Bible - the Shepherd of Hermas was more popular. I don’t think Jerome liked it.
- Thanks for the insight. I'm 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 don’t believe in the Bible that’s it’s some sort of hyper specific end times prophecy instead of the more likely reality that it’s 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 “allegorical work[s] of fiction about politics” to the ones about theology?
  It’s almost as if it’s 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 it’s clear that there’s being an attempt to reconcile the kingdom of Judah with the kingdom of Israel and or later justify King David’s more shitty actions…)
  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 doesn’t 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 “belief” - 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.
  There’s a bunch of these iterant preacher types during the era - things kinda sucked. The “Babylonian Exile” 2 electric boogaloo. Josephus, kinda the main neutral source to Jesus existing, had participated in a revolt/mass suicide against the Roman’s (basically everyone except Josephus killed themselves, and he was like ‘nah’ 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 “hey, if you like this guy he actually liked our guy even more.”)
  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.
  
  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.
  Isn't 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.
  
  The Gospel of Matthew is a synoptic gospel like Luke - it’s made up of material from Mark, Q and the sayings source.
  I don’t know if it’s really “pro Roman.” I’ve always taken ‘Render unto Caesar’ as a dark joke. My impression now might be colored by the Pasolini film, which is so faithful an adaptation that it’s got the endorsement of the Vatican, and really brings Jesus to life in a way that makes him the kind of angry socialist I want to team up with.
  Luke felt like the pro Roman one to me, and is why I think it’s why most Christians in the US turn to it for their passion plays (if you can make out near the Holy City of the Wichitas during the off season, lots of funny pictures to be taken on that cross) and nativities. Luke was of course evangelizing to the Roman gentiles.
  If I was a Christian, I’d believe “Luke” and Paul ruined it. The Roman state did not really seriously persecute Christians in the way that pop culture portrays, barring maybe Nero, so I’m pretty sure the religion had been pacified/made acceptable by the turn of the first century.

103 comments