I'm amazed at how much you wrote while supposedly tired. What are you capable of when not tired? :-)
Politicians have long prayed; after all, government is religion ( https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/all-governments-are-religions ). The U.S. Congress famously/infamously has a Prayer Breakfast. I'm not impressed by performative rituals by people who justify evil. That being said, if something happens to government officials while they pray that spurs them to change their ways, then that's good. I'm all for repentance and becoming a better version of oneself!
As I was saying to Ed in replying to his earlier comment, I don't believe Revelation is literally true. Like, I zero-percent believe it. Zero. It seems to be an Old Testament style of looking into the future, with lots of symbolic language. It also seems to have been written in the 90s A.D. as an encouragement for Christians undergoing persecution. The vengeance and vindictiveness are anti-Christ, and I don't believe that a second coming would resemble anything like what Revelation describes, as it would make a mockery of the Gospel and Christ's actual, non-futuristic, historically attested "first coming." The victory in the Gospels is one of moral goodness and holiness, as Christ overcomes death after giving everyone the best example possible of how to live, including not taking revenge on his enemies. The victory in Revelation is pagan nonsense, totally in keeping with human institutions and their unholy notions of justice.
It's no surprise that Revelation was a disputed book during the debates to include it in the canon ( https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13997/what-historical-reasons-resulted-in-revelation-being-included-in-most-christian ). Ultimately, because its authorship was considered authentically Apostolic (John the Apostle) and because it was used in prayer by Christian communities, it was included. And if the symbolism is properly understood, there are bursts of wisdom contained in it. But there's almost always a huge warning about it, even from communities who accept is an canonical. For instance, the introduction to Revelation on the USCCB site: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/revelation/0
I'm a Gospel-first guy, and any interpretation of any other book of the Bible that contradicts Christ in the Gospels -- or any interpretation of the Gospels that results in internal contradiction -- is dubious to me. Which means that most of historical, institutional Christianity, especially from Constantine onward when the incentives drastically changed, is at least somewhat dubious to me. (But you already knew that :-) ).
I appreciate the long journey you've been on and the deep thinking you've done in your own reflections/meditations/prayer. And you definitely give off good "skeptic" vibes.
Yes, if a person believes something and acts on that belief, then it becomes a reality that others have to deal with. Even if they believe and act out nonsense. C.f. #COVIDHoax
> Laying all these aside, the question is, then, does an irrevocably evil person, (anti-Christ) exist?
I'd caution against considering anti-Christs to be "irrevocably evil." The Anti-Christ is an impostor, and all governments are Anti-Christs, as are its willing ministers. And while it's better to be Contra-Christ than Anti-Christ ( https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/is-spy-wednesday-judas-plotting-to ), you seem to see Anti-Christs as redeemable, in the sense that you think all these anti-Christs invoking Jesus' name might lead to repentance some day for them; I agree.
I also don't think it takes us off the main discussion. One of the big reasons God doesn't take mortal revenge on people persecuting Him is because doing so would eliminate the ordinary means of repentance for the slaughtered. I can't imagine -- as the Revelation literalists apparently can and do -- that God would suddenly become a vengeful, deterministic, pagan deity for "a thousand years" of theocracy.
I don't find anything in the Gospels that intimates God's patience has limits. The Gospels teach me about humans' limits, and how the Divine relates to us limited humans.
Recall that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father is also patient with the older son, who is haughty and thinks his externalizing his ethics to a checklist of rules entitles him to rewards.
> Do you believe the world was destroyed by a flood?
No. The world hasn't been destroyed, nor has humanity been destroyed. Yes, many cultures have flood stories, because floods are part of nature. Myths are stories created to give narrative meaning to aspects of nature and humanity. Some cultures, like the ancient Egyptians, learned how useful floods could be and depended on annual floods to make their land fertile. Lakes are basically floods that never receded. Rivers are floods that never receded and remain in motion.
> How long do you think God has to put the rest of His program on hold waiting for people to receive Him?
I don't believe God has put anything on hold. The Incarnation and the life and ministry of Jesus that followed, contain the fullness of divine revelation. What's still pending, from the perspective of our limited, linear lives as humans, is the rest of our individual, earthly lifespans and our personal/particular judgment; if I "pass" the personal/particular judgment, then I experience the general judgment, which is simply knowing the other souls who are also in communion with God.
Most of all, though, I appreciate your reasons for being wary of human institutions, including Church communities. The unspoken reason for writing my book and launching this blog is to show people a more Gospel-authentic, more logically consistent, more ethically humane, spiritually deeper Jesus than the cartoonish, shallow, pagan-aligned Jesus too often put forth by officials and non-officials.
My continuing challenge is to show people that in spite of the imperfections that humans will always have, the pursuit of authentic, human, congregational relationships in shared, communal (not communist!) faith is worth doing. And that this pursuit rests zero-percent on any sort of theocracy (including theocracies that people think are supported and even guaranteed by scripture passages).
Lexi, you commented two weeks ago, when I first wrote about appearing on this podcast, about this particular bit of dialog. I hadn't included it the prior article, because it seemed like it deserved its own piece, instead of being shoehorned in to the first article (where it would've received much less space). Since you were all over this portion of the podcast weeks ago, what do you think of how I addressed it here?
That video about the government proclamation in Tennessee is cringey for me. But if some people are at that point in their journey away from coercive civil authority and toward genuine faith, and if something like this proclamation represents their moving in the good direction, then I hope they keep going and growing . . .
Very thought-provoking essay, Domenic. I've long believed that Christ will return and will personally reign over the earth for 1,000 years. Yet I've never considered whether His government could be rightly considered a theocracy. Thanks for making me ponder today.
Bryan, I enjoy pondering your daily 90-sec. posts and am happy to return the favor this Wednesday morning :-)
Unless the returning Christ is a totally different God than He is in the Gospels, I don't see how a "second coming" could resemble any awful, earthly government -- any fill-in-the-black-cracy/archy -- in any of its means or ends.
Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4-6 NRSV-CI
Is that not a theocracy where priests rule? I mean He is ruling in conjunction. What say you?
I don't believe that Revelation is meant to be taken literally (unless I'm supposed to believe that Jesus suddenly has seven eyes and seven horns [Rev 5:6]).
Also, recall the Gospel: to "reign" for Christ is to serve, not to impose. Sure, reign all you want, as long as you know that "reign" doesn't mean you get to have impositional power over anyone else :-)
First, thanks much for reading my book, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I arrived at the same conclusion you did regarding dual allegiance to the God fully revealed by Jesus and to the State (even one as supposedly "good" as the U.S.A.). I got there more recently than you did, though. The last time I voted was a mere eight years ago. I bypassed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and went with Gary Johnson for president, joking that I was proud of myself for choosing the lesser of six evils (or however many were on the ballot here in the Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey). Then, I spent a couple of weeks after the "High Holy Day" berating all the Hillary Clinton voters for costing Gary Johnson the election :-D
Do you have any parts of 'Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen' that stood out to you? I rarely hear from devout churchgoers about my book -- I wonder if they're still stuck in the dual allegiance and are hesitant to talk about their God somehow not aligning with their political desires -- and would really like to hear any feedback you'd be willing to share.
There was a part of the "Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen" that did stand out.
The book avoided saying “the Jews.” The word “Jew” does not appear until near the end, at the 15th Station, where you quote John’s Gospel, “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…”
The term “the Israelites” appears 14 times when you should say “the Jews.” Do we avoid saying “the Jews,” for fear of the Jews? Pilate placed the charge against Jesus at the top of the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth. The King of the Jews.” This was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This is found in all four Gospels. The Gospel of John mentions “the Jews” 63 times.
"Israelite" appears only once in the Gospel of John when Jesus saw Nathanael approaching he said, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.” Jesus said to the Jews who wanted to kill him, "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
Good citizens avoid using the term, “the Jews.” Good neighbors are not afraid to say, “the Jews.” Mary, Peter, John, and Paul were Jews that became Christians.
I made the decision when discussing the history of the territory and the belief in the social structures to use "Israel/Israelite" because that's the foundation for the attempts at statism. The term "Jews" is derived from the tribe of Judah, and I thought it historically too narrow to allude only to the tribe of Judah ("Jews") when discussing the larger heritage and social-order aspirations of the broader Israelite people. In Jesus' time, all Jews come from the Israelite heritage, but not all Israelites were from the tribe of Judah.
I think it also serves to focus the book more clearly on power structures, social orders, and notions of authority, than the term "Jews," which seems more Ad Hominem, directed at the personhood; as a good neighbor, I avoid Ad Hominem logical fallacies and the appearance of such whenever possible ;-)
Two of the Bible passages I cite -- Luke 2:34-35, and Tobit 1:17-18 -- do use what's translated as "Israel/Israelites." You have a sharp eye to note that there are many mentions of "Jews" rather than "Israelites" in the translating of the Gospel According to John; I didn't know that! I do cite two such passages from John -- 19:39-42 and 20:18-21 -- in my book, both in Chapter 5.
I must say, Hugh, that's a very detailed observation, and I'm flattered you gave the book such a careful reading. And I'm glad you shared your observations when I asked about feedback; not everyone is willing to give their impressions on what they read. Thanks :-)
The question could be ask as follows. Will the lord ever take away our free will?
Even during the 1,000 years The Choice will still be yours and ultimately that's what matters.
What form the government will take during those years is laid out as well, but not exactly in detail. The lord will Reign, the followers will help Judge, but judge what they don't say. I don't see this as a theocracy in the making, more like justice will be for once, "fair". Keep in mind that Justice currently isn't Justice at all, obviously it wasn't back then either, but it will be when the lord is doing the judging.
That's more like a promise that people will be treated fairly, than a command to follow or go to prison. I don't see that even remotely implied.
I read Revelations 20:4 to mean that justice will be perfected during this time, you won't be judged unfairly. If that's a theocracy I don't see how. They don't say you will be Forced to worship, as I said, free will, will still exist.
But what do I know, I'm a believer who isn't terribly religious nor do I much care to study doctrine, I'm afraid of overthinking it all and losing my faith. As it stands I take my faith like a child and like it that way. It's one of the few things in this world that I Don't try to apply logic to. Others may need to apply logic to this one, I don't, I'll take it all on faith.
The Lord has no intention of taking away our free will and all that's promised for those thousand years is Justice, for a change.
> The question could be ask as follows. Will the lord ever take away our free will?
In my book, I pose this question in the conclusion portion: "Would God take away any of these wonderful gifts, especially free will, if humans misuse them?" We're thinking along the same lines :-) . . . had you already read the book and were nodding toward that portion of it?
> I'm afraid of overthinking it all and losing my faith. As it stands I take my faith like a child and like it that way. It's one of the few things in this world that I Don't try to apply logic to. Others may need to apply logic to this one, I don't, I'll take it all on faith.
But if I may make a suggestion . . . the genuine virtue of faith is an assent, a moving toward knowing, rather than a guessing in the absence of knowing. I realize that "faith" gets used casually to mean "guessing" -- and I can't stand the shallow triumphalism of "You just gotta have faith" as an exalting of ignorance -- but the virtue of faith doesn't rest on willful ignorance. To do more knowing and growing and less guessing, is a strengthening/increasing of faith, not a weakening/decreasing of faith.
And, yes, I'm one of those people you alluded to, who apply logic and evaluate claims of evidence all the time in their faith :-D
Read "The Naked Bible" by Mauro Biglino, and you'll know everything you need to know about the Old Testament.
With regards to the New Testament, I have little faith it's an honest retelling, although it's got some good in it (the translated Aramaic version is better than the Greek IMO).
If you read the Nag Hammadi and the Codex Aurea Linda you'll get some other glimpses into what likely transpired.
Hopefully this apocalypse will be thorough, all the Abrahamic religions need an enema IMO.
What in the New Testament translations you've read seems like it's not a honest account? Always curious about what people are reading and how they form their responses.
As for the apocalypse being thorough, I don't think it'll happen at all; at least, not the way it's popularly and most loudly proclaimed. I see no Gospel-based reason to believe in some theocracy-on-earth scenario with any of the symbolism of the Book of Revelation ever materializing. The "second coming of Christ" occurs for me when I die, regardless of whether *everyone else* gets their comeuppance at the same time. Whether or not I live in the time of the "reign of Christ" has to do with my response to God's grace, not with some externalities involving the whole world.
Agreed on traditional religious organizations needing to be self-critical and alert to their own missteps. Regular reflection and "flushing" as necessary . . .
Provenance on the NT is iffy at best IMO. That said, absolutely read it for broad, obvious interpretations. But IMO a lot has been lost in translation.
The Aramaic translation seems more accurate, e.g. it says "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven." That's obviously a lot more sensical.
Re: The Apocalypse: We are absolutely in it right now. The original meaning of apocalypse is "unveiling" or "revealing". It got twisted through the ages to be a synonym for Armageddon (or perhaps Ragnarok, heheh). I think much of the NT must be looked at through this lens.
Enjoy the show, but take care you don't get dinged. As the Bedouin say: "Trust in God, but tie up your camels."
FYI the closest thing that describes me is a Valentinian Gnostic Cathar, so I'm a double-heretic, take what I write with that understanding.
I've heard the eye of the needle verse (Matthew 19:24) interpreted as a camel-hair rope before, so I was aware of some questions as to what Jesus said there and how it the allegory get translated. I also heard it interpreted as Eye of Needle, referring to a short, narrow gate in a city wall; a camel could only pass through if all its material cargo was relinquished, and then the camel got low to the ground. That image seems very wise, but there are questions about whether that's the intention. The "broad, obvious interpretation" is that heaven is a gift we can't assume for ourselves, and is a gift from God that we must be open to receiving, a lesson supported by reading the next two verses (Matthew 19:25-26).
To the meaning of apocalypse as an unveiling/revealing, that's basically the whole Bible: God's gradual revelation in human history. If that's what's meant by the Book of Revelation, then it's all past tense, as the Incarnation and Gospel is supposed to be the fullness of revelation as Christians interpret it.
If you're a double-heretic, or even a single-heretic, I don't judge you that way. To me, you're a person with some interesting thoughts you've been willing to share. Thanks :-)
I'm amazed at how much you wrote while supposedly tired. What are you capable of when not tired? :-)
Politicians have long prayed; after all, government is religion ( https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/all-governments-are-religions ). The U.S. Congress famously/infamously has a Prayer Breakfast. I'm not impressed by performative rituals by people who justify evil. That being said, if something happens to government officials while they pray that spurs them to change their ways, then that's good. I'm all for repentance and becoming a better version of oneself!
As I was saying to Ed in replying to his earlier comment, I don't believe Revelation is literally true. Like, I zero-percent believe it. Zero. It seems to be an Old Testament style of looking into the future, with lots of symbolic language. It also seems to have been written in the 90s A.D. as an encouragement for Christians undergoing persecution. The vengeance and vindictiveness are anti-Christ, and I don't believe that a second coming would resemble anything like what Revelation describes, as it would make a mockery of the Gospel and Christ's actual, non-futuristic, historically attested "first coming." The victory in the Gospels is one of moral goodness and holiness, as Christ overcomes death after giving everyone the best example possible of how to live, including not taking revenge on his enemies. The victory in Revelation is pagan nonsense, totally in keeping with human institutions and their unholy notions of justice.
It's no surprise that Revelation was a disputed book during the debates to include it in the canon ( https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13997/what-historical-reasons-resulted-in-revelation-being-included-in-most-christian ). Ultimately, because its authorship was considered authentically Apostolic (John the Apostle) and because it was used in prayer by Christian communities, it was included. And if the symbolism is properly understood, there are bursts of wisdom contained in it. But there's almost always a huge warning about it, even from communities who accept is an canonical. For instance, the introduction to Revelation on the USCCB site: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/revelation/0
I'm a Gospel-first guy, and any interpretation of any other book of the Bible that contradicts Christ in the Gospels -- or any interpretation of the Gospels that results in internal contradiction -- is dubious to me. Which means that most of historical, institutional Christianity, especially from Constantine onward when the incentives drastically changed, is at least somewhat dubious to me. (But you already knew that :-) ).
I appreciate the long journey you've been on and the deep thinking you've done in your own reflections/meditations/prayer. And you definitely give off good "skeptic" vibes.
Yes, if a person believes something and acts on that belief, then it becomes a reality that others have to deal with. Even if they believe and act out nonsense. C.f. #COVIDHoax
> Laying all these aside, the question is, then, does an irrevocably evil person, (anti-Christ) exist?
I'd caution against considering anti-Christs to be "irrevocably evil." The Anti-Christ is an impostor, and all governments are Anti-Christs, as are its willing ministers. And while it's better to be Contra-Christ than Anti-Christ ( https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/is-spy-wednesday-judas-plotting-to ), you seem to see Anti-Christs as redeemable, in the sense that you think all these anti-Christs invoking Jesus' name might lead to repentance some day for them; I agree.
I also don't think it takes us off the main discussion. One of the big reasons God doesn't take mortal revenge on people persecuting Him is because doing so would eliminate the ordinary means of repentance for the slaughtered. I can't imagine -- as the Revelation literalists apparently can and do -- that God would suddenly become a vengeful, deterministic, pagan deity for "a thousand years" of theocracy.
I don't find anything in the Gospels that intimates God's patience has limits. The Gospels teach me about humans' limits, and how the Divine relates to us limited humans.
Recall that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father is also patient with the older son, who is haughty and thinks his externalizing his ethics to a checklist of rules entitles him to rewards.
> Do you believe the world was destroyed by a flood?
No. The world hasn't been destroyed, nor has humanity been destroyed. Yes, many cultures have flood stories, because floods are part of nature. Myths are stories created to give narrative meaning to aspects of nature and humanity. Some cultures, like the ancient Egyptians, learned how useful floods could be and depended on annual floods to make their land fertile. Lakes are basically floods that never receded. Rivers are floods that never receded and remain in motion.
> How long do you think God has to put the rest of His program on hold waiting for people to receive Him?
I don't believe God has put anything on hold. The Incarnation and the life and ministry of Jesus that followed, contain the fullness of divine revelation. What's still pending, from the perspective of our limited, linear lives as humans, is the rest of our individual, earthly lifespans and our personal/particular judgment; if I "pass" the personal/particular judgment, then I experience the general judgment, which is simply knowing the other souls who are also in communion with God.
Most of all, though, I appreciate your reasons for being wary of human institutions, including Church communities. The unspoken reason for writing my book and launching this blog is to show people a more Gospel-authentic, more logically consistent, more ethically humane, spiritually deeper Jesus than the cartoonish, shallow, pagan-aligned Jesus too often put forth by officials and non-officials.
My continuing challenge is to show people that in spite of the imperfections that humans will always have, the pursuit of authentic, human, congregational relationships in shared, communal (not communist!) faith is worth doing. And that this pursuit rests zero-percent on any sort of theocracy (including theocracies that people think are supported and even guaranteed by scripture passages).
How am I doing? :-D
Lexi, you commented two weeks ago, when I first wrote about appearing on this podcast, about this particular bit of dialog. I hadn't included it the prior article, because it seemed like it deserved its own piece, instead of being shoehorned in to the first article (where it would've received much less space). Since you were all over this portion of the podcast weeks ago, what do you think of how I addressed it here?
That video about the government proclamation in Tennessee is cringey for me. But if some people are at that point in their journey away from coercive civil authority and toward genuine faith, and if something like this proclamation represents their moving in the good direction, then I hope they keep going and growing . . .
Very thought-provoking essay, Domenic. I've long believed that Christ will return and will personally reign over the earth for 1,000 years. Yet I've never considered whether His government could be rightly considered a theocracy. Thanks for making me ponder today.
Bryan, I enjoy pondering your daily 90-sec. posts and am happy to return the favor this Wednesday morning :-)
Unless the returning Christ is a totally different God than He is in the Gospels, I don't see how a "second coming" could resemble any awful, earthly government -- any fill-in-the-black-cracy/archy -- in any of its means or ends.
Much to think about, indeed!
Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4-6 NRSV-CI
Is that not a theocracy where priests rule? I mean He is ruling in conjunction. What say you?
I don't believe that Revelation is meant to be taken literally (unless I'm supposed to believe that Jesus suddenly has seven eyes and seven horns [Rev 5:6]).
Also, recall the Gospel: to "reign" for Christ is to serve, not to impose. Sure, reign all you want, as long as you know that "reign" doesn't mean you get to have impositional power over anyone else :-)
After reading this article, I purchased "Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen." It is great!
A long time ago I wondered, "Can you be a good Catholic and a good American?" I came to understand that these were not compatible.
I have not voted for over 25 years. Election Day is one of the high "holy days" for good Americans.
I do attend Mass every day and I worship God. Life is very good.
First, thanks much for reading my book, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I arrived at the same conclusion you did regarding dual allegiance to the God fully revealed by Jesus and to the State (even one as supposedly "good" as the U.S.A.). I got there more recently than you did, though. The last time I voted was a mere eight years ago. I bypassed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and went with Gary Johnson for president, joking that I was proud of myself for choosing the lesser of six evils (or however many were on the ballot here in the Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey). Then, I spent a couple of weeks after the "High Holy Day" berating all the Hillary Clinton voters for costing Gary Johnson the election :-D
Do you have any parts of 'Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen' that stood out to you? I rarely hear from devout churchgoers about my book -- I wonder if they're still stuck in the dual allegiance and are hesitant to talk about their God somehow not aligning with their political desires -- and would really like to hear any feedback you'd be willing to share.
There was a part of the "Good Neighbor, Bad Citizen" that did stand out.
The book avoided saying “the Jews.” The word “Jew” does not appear until near the end, at the 15th Station, where you quote John’s Gospel, “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews…”
The term “the Israelites” appears 14 times when you should say “the Jews.” Do we avoid saying “the Jews,” for fear of the Jews? Pilate placed the charge against Jesus at the top of the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth. The King of the Jews.” This was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This is found in all four Gospels. The Gospel of John mentions “the Jews” 63 times.
"Israelite" appears only once in the Gospel of John when Jesus saw Nathanael approaching he said, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.” Jesus said to the Jews who wanted to kill him, "You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
Good citizens avoid using the term, “the Jews.” Good neighbors are not afraid to say, “the Jews.” Mary, Peter, John, and Paul were Jews that became Christians.
I made the decision when discussing the history of the territory and the belief in the social structures to use "Israel/Israelite" because that's the foundation for the attempts at statism. The term "Jews" is derived from the tribe of Judah, and I thought it historically too narrow to allude only to the tribe of Judah ("Jews") when discussing the larger heritage and social-order aspirations of the broader Israelite people. In Jesus' time, all Jews come from the Israelite heritage, but not all Israelites were from the tribe of Judah.
I think it also serves to focus the book more clearly on power structures, social orders, and notions of authority, than the term "Jews," which seems more Ad Hominem, directed at the personhood; as a good neighbor, I avoid Ad Hominem logical fallacies and the appearance of such whenever possible ;-)
Two of the Bible passages I cite -- Luke 2:34-35, and Tobit 1:17-18 -- do use what's translated as "Israel/Israelites." You have a sharp eye to note that there are many mentions of "Jews" rather than "Israelites" in the translating of the Gospel According to John; I didn't know that! I do cite two such passages from John -- 19:39-42 and 20:18-21 -- in my book, both in Chapter 5.
I must say, Hugh, that's a very detailed observation, and I'm flattered you gave the book such a careful reading. And I'm glad you shared your observations when I asked about feedback; not everyone is willing to give their impressions on what they read. Thanks :-)
The question could be ask as follows. Will the lord ever take away our free will?
Even during the 1,000 years The Choice will still be yours and ultimately that's what matters.
What form the government will take during those years is laid out as well, but not exactly in detail. The lord will Reign, the followers will help Judge, but judge what they don't say. I don't see this as a theocracy in the making, more like justice will be for once, "fair". Keep in mind that Justice currently isn't Justice at all, obviously it wasn't back then either, but it will be when the lord is doing the judging.
That's more like a promise that people will be treated fairly, than a command to follow or go to prison. I don't see that even remotely implied.
I read Revelations 20:4 to mean that justice will be perfected during this time, you won't be judged unfairly. If that's a theocracy I don't see how. They don't say you will be Forced to worship, as I said, free will, will still exist.
But what do I know, I'm a believer who isn't terribly religious nor do I much care to study doctrine, I'm afraid of overthinking it all and losing my faith. As it stands I take my faith like a child and like it that way. It's one of the few things in this world that I Don't try to apply logic to. Others may need to apply logic to this one, I don't, I'll take it all on faith.
The Lord has no intention of taking away our free will and all that's promised for those thousand years is Justice, for a change.
> The question could be ask as follows. Will the lord ever take away our free will?
In my book, I pose this question in the conclusion portion: "Would God take away any of these wonderful gifts, especially free will, if humans misuse them?" We're thinking along the same lines :-) . . . had you already read the book and were nodding toward that portion of it?
> I'm afraid of overthinking it all and losing my faith. As it stands I take my faith like a child and like it that way. It's one of the few things in this world that I Don't try to apply logic to. Others may need to apply logic to this one, I don't, I'll take it all on faith.
That's a good concern to be aware of. The kind of thinking that can't get out of its own already-known confines -- hyper-rationalism, which I covered a bit here: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/drunk-with-possibility-or-drunk-with -- is an obstacle to the virtue of faith.
But if I may make a suggestion . . . the genuine virtue of faith is an assent, a moving toward knowing, rather than a guessing in the absence of knowing. I realize that "faith" gets used casually to mean "guessing" -- and I can't stand the shallow triumphalism of "You just gotta have faith" as an exalting of ignorance -- but the virtue of faith doesn't rest on willful ignorance. To do more knowing and growing and less guessing, is a strengthening/increasing of faith, not a weakening/decreasing of faith.
And, yes, I'm one of those people you alluded to, who apply logic and evaluate claims of evidence all the time in their faith :-D
Read "The Naked Bible" by Mauro Biglino, and you'll know everything you need to know about the Old Testament.
With regards to the New Testament, I have little faith it's an honest retelling, although it's got some good in it (the translated Aramaic version is better than the Greek IMO).
If you read the Nag Hammadi and the Codex Aurea Linda you'll get some other glimpses into what likely transpired.
Hopefully this apocalypse will be thorough, all the Abrahamic religions need an enema IMO.
Howdy, Dave!
What in the New Testament translations you've read seems like it's not a honest account? Always curious about what people are reading and how they form their responses.
As for the apocalypse being thorough, I don't think it'll happen at all; at least, not the way it's popularly and most loudly proclaimed. I see no Gospel-based reason to believe in some theocracy-on-earth scenario with any of the symbolism of the Book of Revelation ever materializing. The "second coming of Christ" occurs for me when I die, regardless of whether *everyone else* gets their comeuppance at the same time. Whether or not I live in the time of the "reign of Christ" has to do with my response to God's grace, not with some externalities involving the whole world.
Agreed on traditional religious organizations needing to be self-critical and alert to their own missteps. Regular reflection and "flushing" as necessary . . .
Cheers!
Provenance on the NT is iffy at best IMO. That said, absolutely read it for broad, obvious interpretations. But IMO a lot has been lost in translation.
The Aramaic translation seems more accurate, e.g. it says "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven." That's obviously a lot more sensical.
Re: The Apocalypse: We are absolutely in it right now. The original meaning of apocalypse is "unveiling" or "revealing". It got twisted through the ages to be a synonym for Armageddon (or perhaps Ragnarok, heheh). I think much of the NT must be looked at through this lens.
Enjoy the show, but take care you don't get dinged. As the Bedouin say: "Trust in God, but tie up your camels."
FYI the closest thing that describes me is a Valentinian Gnostic Cathar, so I'm a double-heretic, take what I write with that understanding.
I've heard the eye of the needle verse (Matthew 19:24) interpreted as a camel-hair rope before, so I was aware of some questions as to what Jesus said there and how it the allegory get translated. I also heard it interpreted as Eye of Needle, referring to a short, narrow gate in a city wall; a camel could only pass through if all its material cargo was relinquished, and then the camel got low to the ground. That image seems very wise, but there are questions about whether that's the intention. The "broad, obvious interpretation" is that heaven is a gift we can't assume for ourselves, and is a gift from God that we must be open to receiving, a lesson supported by reading the next two verses (Matthew 19:25-26).
To the meaning of apocalypse as an unveiling/revealing, that's basically the whole Bible: God's gradual revelation in human history. If that's what's meant by the Book of Revelation, then it's all past tense, as the Incarnation and Gospel is supposed to be the fullness of revelation as Christians interpret it.
If you're a double-heretic, or even a single-heretic, I don't judge you that way. To me, you're a person with some interesting thoughts you've been willing to share. Thanks :-)