Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Wasila Frontiersman, Sarah Palin's hometown newspaper, asks the question that I'm sure we've all asked ourselves many times:
Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?
The article is written by Ron Hamman, pastor of the Independent Baptist Church of Wasila, which is a different brand of crazy from the pentecostal church that Palin favors. And Hamman wants you to know that this is a legitimate question:
In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called "that Wicked" by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.
Sure it is. Maybe when he gets done answering this legitimate question, he can tell us whether Lex Luthor has diabetes. Or whether the Grinch is lactose intolerant. Because it's important to ask such questions about fictional characters.
Politics
Comments
Indulging the assumption that there will be such a figure in future history, which is putting it charitably, I'd have to say, no, of course the singular Antichrist would not be gay, because he's supposed to enjoy near-total approval by (and influence over) the masses. A homosexual simply can't do that in today's world.
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 2, 2009 12:16 AM
Since Christ was apparently asexual, I would imagine that the anti-Christ would be bi-sexual.
Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 12:39 AM
I just LOLed when I read the first sentence.
Yeah Ron, the news, internet and radio are just jammed with people speculating on the imagined sexuality of an imaginary antithesis to you imaginary god. - :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 12:57 AM
Paul - Or maybe a Sweet Trans-sexual.
OMG!!! Is Tim Curry the antichrist? Quick let's ask, the ever knowledgeable, Ron! - :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 1:03 AM
If we're going for the Bizarro world definition of "anti", the anti-christ would have to be a bisexual woman. Mmmhmm.
Posted by: Robert Faber | June 2, 2009 1:31 AM
BTW how good are we? Time-travelling back to comment hours before Ed's inital post. ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 1:40 AM
Oh course he'll be gay. And he'll be dead sexy, as well as fabulous! ;P
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 2, 2009 1:42 AM
There will be no Anti-Christ. There will an Anti-Christine; a gay (who dabbles in bi-sex) islamic woman--oh, and black.
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 9:40 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | June 2, 2009 9:41 AM
So he'll be someone who appears to be straight but really isn't? That means the anti-Christ is actually Ted Haggard!
Posted by: catgirl | June 2, 2009 9:46 AM
This "antichrist" stuff is pure raving escapism, nothing more. If you believe in prophecy at all, then the coming of the Antichrist is inevitable, so there's nothing anyone can do to prevent it. And Christians are required to obey the same rules, and follow the same God, whether or not the world will end in this or that person's lifetime. I don't rememmber Jesus putting any term-limits on any of his teachings.
But of course, the Christians who traffic in this lunacy don't really want to obey their Savior's teachings; which is why they make up stories about imagined enemies, to absolve themselves of responsibility. It was all just pathetic when they were predicting that the USSR would attack Israel around 1999 (Hal Lindsey), and it's just as pathetic now.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 9:47 AM
It's nice to see that there are still people out there who think we are the most vile and disgusting of their God's creation. With all this talk of equality for us, I was beginning to worry.
Posted by: Owen | June 2, 2009 9:51 AM
Wait, I thought President Obama was the anti-christ. At least, that's what it sounds like they think the way they talk about him. So, that would suggest, if whack-job logic is to be believed, that Michelle is actually a drag queen. Well, that would explain those arms.
Posted by: gary l. day | June 2, 2009 9:55 AM
He's come and gone. It was Nero. He wasn't gay, AFAIK.
Posted by: heddle | June 2, 2009 9:56 AM
Actually, a lot of biblical scholars believe that Jesus intended to return to Earth within the lifetime of his followers, maybe 50 years maximum.
Posted by: catgirl | June 2, 2009 10:03 AM
Gotta love the whole "Well, gee, I'm not sayin' he's going to be gay or anything, I'm just asking..." The Christian Right are freaking ninjas of passive-aggressiveness.
Posted by: Finch | June 2, 2009 10:05 AM
Based on my limited reading of the history around the time that Christ was supposed to have lived I would guess that his rising from the dead, three days after having been crucified would have led to a "Groundhog Day" sort of scenario where he would be killed, rise from the dead, be killed again by his the superstitious and shit-scared locals. Rinse and repeat.
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 10:16 AM
catgirl,
You are correct, but you don't have to be a scholar. The time lines for apocalyptic prophesy are quite clear. Some of you will not taste death..., this generation..., etc. Even in Revelation, the symbolism in which is impossible to understand, the time lines are clear. John wrote: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. (Rev 1:1) and, in 1:3, ...because the time is near..
Posted by: heddle | June 2, 2009 10:18 AM
Even, by god-botherer standards, that's some pretty poor work. The passage in question quite plainly is referring to his arrogance and vanity, not his sexual orientation.
Blatant Thread Hijack: speaking of interpretations, Joe Cocker's lyrics for "A Little Help From My Friends" at Woodstock have finally been translated into English...
Posted by: Spidergrackle | June 2, 2009 10:19 AM
Nah as I was going to say several hours ago -
The Antichrist will be a butt-ugly bull-duke with short spiky dark hair, wearing a rocket-studded leather choker - like this*.
Oops my bad. In the center that's Sydney, Australia's, Lord Mayor, Clover Moore (the other two drama queens I'm not sure). - :D DJ
*BBC News. One Minute News. Picture of the Day, 25 Nov (2004).
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 10:20 AM
But what is meant by 'apocalypse' isn't quite as clear, is it? IIRC, I believe heddle is choosing the lower, 'great calamity' (i.e., the destruction of the temple), definition and not the usual 'end of the world' definition.
Posted by: Spartan | June 2, 2009 10:28 AM
Go ahead Mr. Hamman, say what you really mean, "Queers are evil." It's okay. I won't think any less of you. That would hardly be possible.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 2, 2009 10:46 AM
Spidergrackle - awesome video, I'm forwarding right after I get done wiping my eyes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 2, 2009 11:07 AM
"But what is meant by 'apocalypse' isn't quite as clear, is it? IIRC, I believe heddle is choosing the lower, 'great calamity' (i.e., the destruction of the temple), definition and not the usual 'end of the world' definition."
AFAIK apocalypse actually means 'revealing' or 'unveiling' and the original Greek probably refers to the end of an era rather than the end of the world. This is just a particularly comical case of supposedly 'fundamentalist' christians being utterly clueless about the actual fundamentals of their religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse#End_of_the_age
(I know it's a wikipedia cite, but I'm way too lazy to go hunting through actual scholarship about this nonsense.)
Posted by: GBM | June 2, 2009 11:10 AM
I rather like the idea of taking something from Paul (whom most would describe as 'closeted') and combining that with Revelations to develop more accurate descriptions of the mythical flaming gay anti-christ. If we mixed in some zoroastrianism and perhaps some of the Manu myths, we might be able to zero in on the hair color of unicorns.
Posted by: carey | June 2, 2009 11:19 AM
Come on folks the anti-christ will not be able to perform miracles, will love sex and when she dies will stay dead. The anti-christ is us!
Posted by: bobh | June 2, 2009 11:24 AM
Is my Asian atheist lesbian Marine friend a candidate for Anichrist? I'd totally follow her.
Posted by: Paul from NH | June 2, 2009 11:35 AM
Paul from NH - She's not a smartgunner by any chance? :) DJ
HUDSON: Hey Vasquez you ever been mistaken for a man?
VASQUEZ: No. You?
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 11:42 AM
Let's all laugh at the poor whites!
We're not racists!
We're college graduates, ferkhrisakes!
Posted by: joeschmoe | June 2, 2009 11:45 AM
"Let's all laugh at the poor whites!
We're not racists!
We're college graduates, ferkhrisakes!"
Oh, dear me, let's not do that. Let's, instead, shoot them in the narthex of their church for disagreeing with us. Wait, we're not like that, my bad.
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 12:04 PM
@DJ,
I'm glad you were mistaken as Tim Curry's Frankenfurter is WAY hotter than that dude. In fact, if Tim Curry is the anti-christ he can sign me up, that seems like a blast.
Posted by: peaches | June 2, 2009 12:06 PM
of course the singular Antichrist would not be gay, because he's supposed to enjoy near-total approval by (and influence over) the masses.
Don't forget that the fundies see themselves as a remnant. They'd have no problem with a gay anti-Christ, as his acceptance by "the masses" would reinforce their belief that humanity is depraved and corrupt, and that the vast majority are going to hell.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 2, 2009 12:07 PM
I just hope the Flying Spaghetti Monster's not gay. I might have to switch to linguine otherwise.
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | June 2, 2009 12:08 PM
OOPS! Just looked up and found out that Clover Moore is a woman. Mea culpa.
Posted by: peaches | June 2, 2009 12:11 PM
Posted by: Spidergrackle | June 2, 2009 12:23 PM
Who would have thought a town of 10,000 people could have enough nuts to support two crazy churches.
Posted by: Daft Greg | June 2, 2009 12:37 PM
Re paul
Does Mr. paul mean to tell us that Joshua of Nazareth never got it on with Mary Magdalene?
Posted by: SLC | June 2, 2009 12:37 PM
Peaches - When she who cannot be named comes to world dominance won't you be sorry*.
Actually, I'm kinda hoping on Tim Curry too. Much, much more of an all singing, all dancing, kinda Antichrist. Then after the
rupture, pardon me, RAPTURE, everything will just be FABulous! with all those buzzkills up in heaven licking god's boots (or whatever), we'll party like it's the the END OF TIME!!! (I'm sure the Right-wing Religious Retards think that's what will happen, probably, in reality, no one will notice the difference, apart from the sudden upswing in the mean IQ) - ;) DJ*Unless you're into that sort thing, of course. What a sadistic bitch she is! ;D
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 12:49 PM
Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?
And, do you think, maybe, that he might want to go out with me?
Maybe?
Posted by: 01jack | June 2, 2009 12:56 PM
My favorite was when Max Blumenthal interviewed some attendees at this conference of American Evangelicals for Israel. One of the attendees, an elderly white woman, told Blumenthal that the anti-Christ would be "a man of peace."
Posted by: Tommykey | June 2, 2009 1:03 PM
01jack - I wonder what the Antichrist's video on one of those dating sites would like? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 1:03 PM
Well, they did have to use artificial insemination to breed him...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 2, 2009 1:16 PM
To answer my own question (#41) no doubt it would go:
Or perhaps it would take the form of a twelve minute interpretive dance to "Hello" and other Lionel Richie 'hits'; or maybe something far, far worse (I'm open to suggestions, if you dare!) - :D DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 1:28 PM
I don't know about anybody else, but I think that what the Frontiersman really needs to be reporting on is the discover of the Super Devil. We can argue about the details once we've figured out how to deal with that.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 2, 2009 1:31 PM
Gotta be a metrosexual.
And Nero was too early for being the Roman antichrist. It had to be Domitian.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 2, 2009 1:39 PM
@ heddle: So... if that's the case, a literal reading of the Bible would require that either one (or more) of Jesus' disciples is still alive today (thus fulfilling - albeit liberally - the "this generation" part of that quote) or that we are living in a period beyond the end-times (i.e., Revelation already happened).
If one of Jesus' disciples is still alive today (roughly 2000 years later), then why hasn't he ever revealed himself?
If we are living in a period beyond the end-times, then why worry about whether God will save us or not? Doesn't it mean that our ancestors weren't worthy, and therefore we have no chance?
Or maybe the Bible shouldn't be read literally. (Not that I'm saying that you, heddle, are reading it literally, but merely pointing out - again - the silliness of doing so.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | June 2, 2009 1:51 PM
If we are living in a period beyond the end-times...
Well, yeah—the Rapture happened around 40 A.D. Today's fundies are descendents of those who didn't make the grade. :-)
FWIW: It's WasiLLa, not WasiLa.
Posted by: Ted Powell | June 2, 2009 2:17 PM
Ed, don't worry, when the rapture comes we'll get our country back!
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | June 2, 2009 2:38 PM
When I heard;
I thought; Hey! It's Oprah. But even the anti-christ ain't that evil.
Since spidergrackle's link I'm convinced it's Ellen DeGeneres.
*joking*
Posted by: eddie | June 2, 2009 3:33 PM
Frankly I'd much rather they stay busy with apocalypse bingo if it keeps them from visiting their brand of insanity on the country at large.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 4:24 PM
DJ,
That DOES sound fabulous. The raptured folk can go off to where ever it is they're going to go and to whatever it is they want to do for eternity and those of us who are 'left behind' will rock out to Sweet Transvestite.
In fact, I hadn't thought of it until just now but Tim Curry already played (or at least voiced) the Lord of Darkeness once in Legend. It was a sign, Ridley Scott is a prophet.
Posted by: peaches | June 2, 2009 4:40 PM
Danio stated:
Actually they merged those interests into one. The plan was that McCain/Palin get elected. Imprecatory prayers had already started on McCain, where the request merely asked God to wait to smite him until after the inauguration, and then Palin would take over and appoint John Haggee Secretary of Defense and State to handle getting things started with Iran and Israel.
While that smartypants black guy foiled their plan, you can still get in on the ground floor; merely contribute to SarahPAC now!
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 2, 2009 4:53 PM
mercurianferret, #46
It's the latter. Your conclusions, however, don't follow. The prophecy refers to the end of the Jewish Age, in 70 AD, not the end of human history.
Posted by: heddle | June 2, 2009 4:58 PM
Gary L. Day mused "Wait, I thought President Obama was the anti-christ."
It turns out President Obama is actually gay. So there's no need to update the conspiracy theories after all!
Posted by: BobApril | June 2, 2009 5:26 PM
"Since Christ was apparently asexual, I would imagine that the anti-Christ would be bi-sexual."
Many fundamentalists say that Jesus' bride is the church. They mean the men and women are his bride, of course, not the building.
This came up on one of their forums where I post, so I asked if this meant that Christ is a bisexual polygamist?
Boy did I ever get kicked out of there quick. No sense of humor, I guess.
Posted by: Bill Ware | June 2, 2009 6:16 PM
To: heddle
It seems to me that a lot of Christians in the USA believe that the Bible does predict the end of the world (even the universe), but I infer from your comments that you do not. You seem to interpret some passages in the Bible as referring to the first century. Is this correct? I know you have linked to your blog in the past. Could you perhaps direct me to some posts about how your beliefs about "end times" prophecies differ from other Christians?
Posted by: Blue Nine | June 2, 2009 6:22 PM
On June 2, 2009 9:47 AM, Raging Bee posted:
But of course, the Christians who traffic in this lunacy don't really want to obey their Savior's teachings; which is why they make up stories about imagined enemies, to absolve themselves of responsibility. It was all just pathetic when they were predicting that the USSR would attack Israel around 1999 (Hal Lindsey), and it's just as pathetic now.
Could you expand on this comment? What do Christians want if not to follow the J-Man?
Posted by: Blue Nine | June 2, 2009 6:27 PM
Blue Nine,
This is probably the best one.
It doesn't differ from all other Christians. Preterism and partial preterism is a healthy subset. It just doesn't lead to exciting "Left Behind" novels.
Posted by: heddle | June 2, 2009 7:31 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | June 2, 2009 7:49 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the only "Antichrists" here are people like this pastor, who obsess about such things. . . .
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 2, 2009 7:56 PM
I don't know if the Grinch is lactose intolerant, but he did have an enlarged heart.
Posted by: cm | June 2, 2009 8:28 PM
Heddle comments that: "The prophecy refers to the end of the Jewish Age, in AD 70, not the end of human history."
Scholars generally agree that Revelation was written between 81 - 96 AD. Some have dated it earlier than that but exegetical evidence argues against an earlier date. Something written "after the fact" cannot be a prophecy. By what argument or hermeneutical principle could one argue that something written no earlier than 81 AD serves as a "prophecy" for something that occurred in 70 AD (destruction of the Temple).
Not being argumentative here - just curious. Perhaps I have missed something during my years of study.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 2, 2009 10:16 PM
Heddle - Funny, that age didn't look Jewish. :) - DJ
(Of course, nothing else was happening anywhere on Earth. All of Earth's history was about a minor Roman/Assyrian/Babylonian/Egyptian &etc. Province).
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 2:19 AM
Merging the thread topics of religion and Joe Cocker, the English comedian Adam Buxton did something similar with the BBC's Songs of Praise a couple of years ago: here.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | June 3, 2009 3:58 AM
I say, shouldn't the Repubs vote for a gay peace-loving president, then? If that president is the antichrist, voting them into power sooner rather than later would bring on the Rapture and they'd all go to Heaven, and leave the rest of us here in peace to get on with things.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | June 3, 2009 4:38 AM
@heddle - "Exciting" isn't quite the word I would use to describe those books. :)
I pity the lack of imagination the fans of that series must have if they really consider Left Behind to be remotely exciting or realistic in any way.
Posted by: Imrryr | June 3, 2009 9:47 AM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret), #62
You are correct that the preterist position is destroyed if Revelation was written after AD 70. However, you are not correct that the evidence is strong, and none of the evidence is exegetical, it is historical. I have commented on that issue here, if you are interested.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 10:35 AM
Heddle - wouldn't the latter be stronger evidence than the former?
Which would you trust to date an item, an explanation, written well after the events to conform with expectations, or contemporaneous finds and writings that fill in the background of the events that were occurring leading up to and at the time of writing? - curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 11:05 AM
DJ,
Historical evidence is indeed better. But the historical evidence is, in my opinion, stronger (but not conclusive) for the early date. In addition the exegetical evidence, slim as it is, also favors an early date. The latter date view rests almost entirely on a comment by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, which is subject to interpretation.
It is fair to say that the common dating of Revelation is based more on tradition than evidence. And that tradition, especially in the US, is strongly biased toward a "Left Behind" eschatology, for which a later date of Revelation is advantageous.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 11:15 AM
The time lines for apocalyptic prophesy are quite clear.
That statement is so stupid, so demonstrably false, and so representative of the Bible-believer mindset, that the only appropriate response is loud laughter. Which I would offer if only the joke weren't to old.
Tell us, heddle, if those time lines are so clear, then why have so many people made so many different wrong predictions based on the same book for so many generations?
I love it when Bible-believers pretend their book is "clear." Have they even read it? Hello, you're supposed to study and understand the book, not praise and worship it like it's a God.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2009 11:33 AM
Many fundamentalists say that Jesus' bride is the church. They mean the men and women are his bride, of course, not the building. This came up on one of their forums where I post, so I asked if this meant that Christ is a bisexual polygamist?
No, for two reasons: first, the men are supposed to be just as submissive to Christ as the women, with absolutely none of the assertiveness or independence we tend to label "manly" (yes, that includes getting a hardon); and second, everyone is supposed to think and act the same, with no uniqueness or independent thought; therefore Christ won't actually have many wives, just many copies of the same wife. So that makes it all OK.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2009 11:42 AM
Is there any complete listing of all the proposed identities (or characteristics) of the antichrist? It would be interesting to know how the ideas have (or, have not) changed over time.
Posted by: dean | June 3, 2009 11:42 AM
@DingoJack: "Funny, that age didn't look Jewish. :) - DJ"
DingoJack wins!
Posted by: ebina2 | June 3, 2009 12:04 PM
Sorry, I can't leave this juicy s**t alone. In Hamman's piece(religion views) in the Frontiersman, he writes "Lot himself understood their intentions is clear; not only did he call such behavior wicked, but he also offered his virgin daughters as substitutes, which the men of Sodom refused."
OK, so who's being ethical? Those nasty homos of Sodom, who simply came over asking for the time or a slice of buttered matzoh, or Lot, who's essentially pimping off his unmarried daughters? (Lot also had sex with his daughter later, but, hey, that's ok, because the Sodomites were by then dead).
Time to look at the bible askance (or at least place warning labels on them), and search for our moral certitudes elsewhere in literature.
Posted by: ebina2 | June 3, 2009 12:18 PM
Heddle - I see! You learn something new every day*
So what kind of date range are we looking at here for the Matthew to Revelations sequence?
ebma2 - YAY! I WIN!!! uh, wait a sec...what is it I win again?^ :D
*OK not brilliant I admit, but true (as only a truism can be)
^And PLEASE don;t tell me it's dinner with Mel Gibson, and his stick-insect girlfriend!
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 12:28 PM
What struck me most about his argument was how, as he relates the scene of the men of Sodom outside Lot's house demanding their homosexual gang rape, he glosses right over the gang rape and fixates on the homosexuality. He even asks rhetorically "what other conclusion can we reach" than that the men's sin was homosexuality. The thought that gang rape is wrong never enters his head.
Posted by: DaveL | June 3, 2009 12:32 PM
Ron Hamman actually wrote:
"Lot himself understood their intentions is clear.."?!? Clearly a professional writer then!
How about: "Lot himself understood that their intentions were clear.."?
Didn't anyone teach this clod the rudiments of grammar?
As for his 'point', tell me he didn't mean to imply that homosexual gang rape is bad, but pimping your under-aged daughters to be gang raped is, like, totally righteous?
Surely even the Religious Right Retards can't be this morally bankrupt, can they? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 12:56 PM
DaveL "The thought that gang rape is wrong never enters his head."
That's because they're all gang rapists. Pedophiles, too. All that and they want to break up your marriage with their so-called gay "marriage". I shit you not.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 3, 2009 1:03 PM
DingoJack "As for his 'point', tell me he didn't mean to imply that homosexual gang rape is bad, but pimping your under-aged daughters to be gang raped is, like, totally righteous?"
You have seen the Christian Right, right? True righteousness is sacrificing other people.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 3, 2009 1:06 PM
The antichrist will be a gay socialist fascist librul pro-abortion pro-tax muslim atheist illegal immigrant mired in liberation theology.
Posted by: Chuck | June 3, 2009 1:07 PM
Spidergrackle, closed-captioned Joe Cocker FTW! I will forward as soon as I stop rolling around on the floor.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | June 3, 2009 2:32 PM
Heddle says: "However, you are not correct that the evidence is strong, and none of the evidence is exegetical, it is historical."
This causes me to wonder if Heddle knows what "exegesis" means! Grammar, vocabulary, word forms, etc. all contribute to knowledge of the text and play important roles in the literary-critical exegesis of the text. Yes, Heddle, an exegetical survey of the text does play a part in dating the text. By the way, I visited the link to which you directed me. Nothing particularly revelatory in what you had to say. The quotes you use as your sources are pretty much Religion 101 references. I didn't see any "big league" exegetes as sources. One of my first classes at Duke University was Greek Exegesis of the Apocalypse. Yes, the evidence is strong both exegetically and historically for the later date. Internally, and from an exegetical standpoint, the evidence strongly supports the later Domitianic date. Arguments have been advanced on the basis of external evidence that support Trajanic, Claudian, Neronic and Domitianic dates. The "big league" Apocalypse scholars (e.g., Charles, Caird, Minear) all ultimately come down on the side of the later date. Of course, I noticed that in the article to which you directed me that you indicated that the "liberal" scholars had an affinity for arriving at later dates for all the books of the New Testament so that they could argue that they had undergone changes and that original meanings had been lost. This represents a biased opinion, not an academic or scholarly point of reference. By the way, they have ALL been edited and so it becomes the exegetical task of redaction criticism to deal with this issue. Perhaps the seminary and graduate school of religion from which you graduated did not emphasize the "higher critical" method of exegesis. Most of the fundamentalist "Bible College" type schools do not equip their students with the hermeneutics of higher critical exegesis.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 3, 2009 5:03 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
Thanks for reminding me that you can be such a pompous dick. The definition of exegesis from dictionary.com:
critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.
is consistent with what I was using.
Bullshit. One reference, for example, is Kenneth Gentry's When Jerusalem Fell which is from his PhD thesis. It may not be right, but it is certainly not Religion 101.
I didn't attend seminary, fundamentalist or otherwise. Your response amounts to sarcasm and an appeal to authority,i.e., your "big league" exegetes.
Maybe you went to a school where they taught: tell, don't show. My school taught: show, don't tell. In the link I posted I have provided support, internal and external, for the earlier date. Maybe it is weak, but you didn't address any of those points. You have nothing more than "some experts agree with me, and I'll characterize them as the big-leaguers."
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 6:04 PM
Correction, the book was Before Jerusalem Fell. There is a little wiki blurb here.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 6:08 PM
Heddle:
You are a great "name caller" - a pompous dick, really?! I think that best describes you, based on comments that are usually made regarding your input on most issues. As for "maybe you went to a school where they taught..." - I told you where I went to school - Seminary at Duke and doctorate at Vanderbilt. You really show your character when you respond to anything that I say. You are obviously a "wannabe religious expert" and you just don't have the education or the background for it. My comments threaten you and make you feel insecure because you fear being exposed as one whose comments on religion are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." You remind me of an arrogant, big-mouthed, blow-hard charlatan who is so insecure in his own personhood that he simply has to place himself 10 feet above contradiction on any subject.
By the way, the "big league" exegetes are not "mine." They belong to the scholarly world of those who choose to avail themselves of the expertise and knowledge that they offer. And by the way, I don't look for "experts who agree with me" because that amounts to bringing a pretext to the text. I rather suspect that that is your way of doing business. I studied/continue to study the "experts" and I agree or disagree with them based on my best understanding of the facts/arguments. It would be highly presumptious for me to take the position of "some experts agree with me, and I'll characterize them as the big-leaguers."
I didn't address any of the "points" in your article because they are all old, worn-out and any New Testament scholar worth his salt would have sifted through that "stuff" a long time ago and has long since digested what little "meat" is there and has discarded the "bones."
I simply responded to your "general" statement that I was wrong and I responded in a "general" way. At the risk of being "pompous," let me say that I have probably done more exegesis and written more papers on New Testament topics in one year than you have done in your life. You see, that's my vocation and my profession. I have paid the academic and professional price for my credentials and I don't have to "try so hard that I reveal that my true identity is religious expert wannabe."
I have no doubt that you are a professional and somewhat of an expert in whatever it is that you teach but I doubt that you are "theologian / exegete with portfolio." You see, that's one of the things that gives religion in America a bad name. While I can claim to be an engineer, if required to practice the profession, folks would soon know that I have no credentials and no learning in the field. However, any insecure, personality-flawed individual can pick up the Bible, read some screwed-up theology and become established among certain segments of the general populace as an "expert." Since you have academic credentials in your chosen field, I suspect that you "wow" the Sunday School attendees who assume that academic credentials in one field renders one an expert in any field.
Heddle, I recommend that you get your "name calling" under control. It suggests that you are a very insecure person of low character. I have noticed that you always have to be right. You cannot bear the thought that someone may know something that you don't know. If you're not too old, you can get help for this malady. You'll enjoy life a lot more and you will find that people will be inclined to like you more than they do now.
Think about how you respond to me, Heddle. I cause fear and anger to rise up in you because you are afraid that you will be exposed and identified as a shallow, pseudo-expert in the arena of religion and theology. You'll be happier if you confine your "expertise" to your church where you are all like-minded and where you can be an unchallenged big frog in the pond!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 3, 2009 7:22 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
Well gee, that's real impressive.
---------------------
Well then, this should be easy for you, graduate of Duke Seminary and holding a doctorate from Vanderbilt. Here are a few of the points I made on my blogpost that you characterized as Religion 101:
External Evidence for an Early Date
Irenaeus supplies some evidence for an early date, for he wrote about "ancient copies" of Revelation. If, as late-date proponents contend, that Irenaeus was stating that John's vision (which necessarily preceded the writing) was seen "almost in our day" (as opposed to John himself) then it is hard to square with his reference to "ancient copies" of Revelation. That would mean his vision was "almost in our day" while "ancient copies" Revelation, written later, existed.
Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 150-215] wrote:
When after the death of the tyrant he [John] removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles, in some places to appoint bishops, in others to regulate whole churches, in others to set among the clergy some one man, it may be, of those indicated by the Spirit.
There are two things to say about this:
1. The "tyrant" is unnamed. However, history shows that this is by far a more apt description of Nero than of Domitian. There is voluminous evidence of widespread persecution of Christians under Nero, and little to no evidence for a similar treatment under Domitian.
2. The date of John’s birth is not know, but it is generally assumed that he was born about the same time as Christ. After the death of Nero, he would have been in his sixties. After the death of Domitian, he would have been in his nineties. The activities that Clement ascribes to John are more befitting a sixty-something than a ninety something. Clement also writes of the post-exile John as "pursing a young apostate on horseback." Again, this would seem to indicate a younger man.
Another relevant and interesting statement from Clement is:
For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero."
Clement states that apostolic revelation ended with the death of Nero (A.D. 68). It would seem inescapable that Clement believed that John wrote Revelation before that date, and consequently at least two years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Additional external evidence for an early date:
* The Muratorian Canon (circa A.D. 170) which says that the apostle Paul wrote to seven churches after John wrote Revelation. Tradition teaches that Paul died around A.D. 67-68.
* Tertullian [A.D. 160-220] writes that John was exiled the same time that Paul and Peter where killed. Again, tradition teaches that Paul and Peter where martyred circa A.D. 67-68.
* Epiphanius [A.D. 315-403] writes (twice) that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero.
* The Syriac version of the canon (6th century) has a heading to Revelation: "Written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar".
Internal Evidence for an Early Date
One piece of internal evidence for an early date is the deafening silence regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. If Jerusalem had already been destroyed, with well over a million Jews killed, hundreds of thousands of others in bondage, and the rest scattered, not to mention the temple in ruins, it is reasonable to expect that such a catastrophic event would warrant a mention.
In fact, no book of the New Testament mentions the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the genocide unleashed on the Jews by the Romans. This is very consistent (and may be the source of) Clement’s teaching that apostolic revelation ended with Nero.
Direct internal evidence comes in many forms. One is that that Revelation itself describes the Temple as still standing:
1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. (Rev. 11:1-2).
There is an intriguing fact that the Jewish revolt, as recorded by Josephus, lasted about 42 months. Here we merely note that the passage indicates that at the time of writing the temple is still standing prior to the trampling of the Gentiles.
----------------
Based on your impeccable credentials, a graduate of Duke Seminary and holding a doctorate from Vanderbilt, and your characterization of these points as tiresome, trivial, Religion 101, maybe you could address them? You should be able to dispense with them with nary a effort of your superior brain!
Oh, you have, as yet, provided no support whatsoever for the late date position, except that you are a graduate of Duke Seminary and hold a doctorate from Vanderbilt, and can name some "big league" exegetes who support it. Bravo!
I responded, in #67, to your first post in a cordial manner, as anyone can see. Your response included the cheap and worn-out "maybe heddle doesn't know what exegesis means" response and "this is religion 101"--quite below your impressive academic credentials of graduating from Duke Seminary and holding a doctorate from Vanderbilt.
You are mistaking disdain and contempt for fear and anger.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 9:19 PM
Wait wait. Before we continue, do you two think you strip off the vestments and slather on the anointing oil?
*gets "popcorn"*
Welcome to Thunderdome! Naked christian cagefight!
Posted by: Leni | June 3, 2009 9:31 PM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret)
I didn't pay close attention to your list of authorities. I don't think you are correct. Both Caird and Charles (I assume that is R. H. Charles) were Preterists--in fact I believe they advocated full as opposed to moderate Preterism. Are you sure they advocated a later date for Revelation, which would be at odds with their preterism? Do you have any references?
You might check out Caird's wiki page, which states:
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2009 10:13 PM
Heddle:
Why are you always so angry? Why do you feel the need to make light of two great universities that have contributed so much to our society? I would think that it would do your "spirit" and your "soul" much harm to view another human with "disdain and contempt."
I could pull my 10 volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers from the shelf and quote the same passages that you have quoted -and more if need be. Did you find these quotes in Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell?" By the way, he wrote that as a ThD thesis - it was in fulfillment of a degree from Whitefield Theological Seminary, a DVD, cassette tape, correspondence school which did not require actual class attendance and is not accredited. That particular degree didn't even require completion of correspondence courses - the only requirement was a 100,000 word thesis. I wonder how many of those 100,000 words are quotes lifted from the writings of the Fathers?
Dealing with the Book of Revelation requires more than quoting scripture and attempting to apply "real time" events to the symbolism. As far as Revelation 11:1-2 is concerned, I think it is hardly too much to say that the very last things the "temple" and the "holy city" could mean would be the physical temple and the earthly Jerusalem, especially in a book in which all things are expressed in symbols. The reference to the 42 months is simply (not really simply) a play on Daniel's "time, two times, and a half) and keeps before the reader the writer's emphasis on the fact that he really is dealing with apocalyptic "stuff."
He also draws from writings from the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon)and may be borrowing from what had been heard/said during and after the catastrophic happenings of AD 70. Eusebius confirms that Irenaeus referred to the persecutions of Christians under Domitian and while neither Clement nor Origen mention Domitian's name, the context strongly (I would say almost certainly) supports the claim that their references were to Domitian. All of this points to an approximate date of AD 90 for the book.
On the other hand, two of my favorite scholars, Lightfoot and Selwyn assign it a date of AD 64-68 during the reign of Nero and after the Neronic persecutions. Scholars have proved that these dates cannot be maintained when one considers what John writes in 17:10-11. It seems easy enough to simply list the emperors but we run into problems here. With which one do we begin our count? Do we count them all as emperors or only those who were deified by an act of the Senate? It is futile to try to super-impose real time events on this symbolism.
John was not concerned with arithmetical precision nor was he writing history as it happened. Using symbolic language, language that could not/cannot be literally interpreted in any age, John employs the apocalyptic genre to proclaim the message that every power which sets itself up against God (in any age)will, in the end, destroy itself on the Cross of Jesus Christ and through the martyr witness of the saints.
The Book of Revelation almost didn't make it into the canon. Even then there were those who had strong doubts about its canonical value. I'm sure you must know how Luther felt about the Book of Revelation.
I am glad that we have the writings of the Fathers but we should remember that they did not always agree with each other. My only point throughout this tiresome "tete-a-tete" is that it is ridiculous to try to interpret this book in a literal sense and it is futile to absolutely apply "real time" events to the symbolism and/or in any way absolutize the symbolism.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 3, 2009 11:39 PM
CAPT Holcomb:
I think you know I don't believe in a triune god of any sort. I think that there might have been a rabbi named Joshua, a Nazarene who was a very good man, or that the character of Jesus of Nazareth might be an amalgamation of a number of different persons. Regardless, I am deeply impressed by someone who speaks and writes clearly and calmly, without disdain and sarcasm dripping like, well, never mind. I'm okay with my non-belief and your belief. Live long, enjoy life.
Posted by: democommie | June 3, 2009 11:57 PM
Heddle:
I have before me my worn out volume of Caird's "The Revelation of St. John the Divine." On page 12 he says, "The one answer, which would have the support of a majority of scholars, is that John expected the End, the final crisis of world history, the return of Christ in victory and judgment; and that everything else in his vision, the last plagues, the emergence of Antichrist, the great martyrdom of the church, and the fall of Babylon are only premonitory heralding the great day of God."
He then says, "The other answer, which I believe to be the true one, is that John's coming crisis was simply the persecution of the church, and that all the varied imagery of his book has no other purpose than this, to disclose to the prospective martyrs the real nature of their suffering and its place in the eternal purposes of God, or, in Bunyan's language, to take them about to the backside of the wall."
As to the date of writing, Caird definitely sides with the later date. On page 14 he says: "According to Irenaeus (Haer. v. 30.3), John wrote the Revelation at the end of the reign of Domitian, who was emperor from A.D. 81 to 96, and this accords well with the internal evidence."
I am now peering into my Charles' volumes. Charles' 2 volumes from the International Critical Commentary are somewhat dated but his work remains as a primary source of reference, especially in the areas of philology and linguistics. He gives time and consideration to all the hypotheses that were respectable during his time. However,
he ultimately favors the later date saying, "Hence it appears that the Apocalypse was written either under Vespasian or under Domitian. The external evidence is, as we have already seen, unanimous in favor of the latter as against the former"(Vol. I, xciv). He admits that the internal evidence is more confusing; however, in the next 5 pages he shows a preference for the later date against the others (pp. xci-xcvii).
Neither Caird nor Charles is a preterist(although I am not completely sure that I even know what that term means - I certainly never heard it used in any theology class that I have taken). Both accept the 81 - 96 A.D. time-frame. I am familiar with Dodd and would bet that he too, would fall into the latter category.
And that's enough for me right now. I have a 0700 tee time in the morning. And by the way, please tell me that you are not attempting to do serious theological inquiry through the medium of Wikapedia!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 4, 2009 12:22 AM
democommie:
Thanks for your kind words. I respect your faith (or non-faith) position. As a matter of fact, I find more reason to believe in the humanistic goodness of mankind through conversations with folks who freely admit that they don't know the answers than I do with those folks who quote Scripture and are sure that they know all the answers. I believe there is a Higher Power and I believe that Jesus was unique in his person and work. Having said that, I don't believe 5% of what has come to us over the years as the prejudices, superstitions and distortions at the hands of men claiming to know the will of God. It's a bit ridiculous for so-called Christians to argue over the meaning of an enigma filled book like Revelation when they don't even live by the simple directives of "Blessed are the merciful; forgive as you have been forgiven, etc." If I weren't already a Christian, I don't see anything in the Christian world today that would make me want to be a Christian. At the rock bottom core of my existence, I define myself as being a Christian Humanist. For me, nothing is more disgusting than a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian armed with a King James Bible and thoroughly convinced that he/she is about to do the will of God.
Again, thanks for your kind words.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 4, 2009 12:37 AM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret),
Again, not angry. Nor do I make light of Duke or Vanderbilt. I make light that you presented your credentials as if that settled the argument. As I said before I was prepared to have a reasonable discussion, see #67, and you got all snarky, see #82.
I hold a lot of people in disdain and contempt, including your foil Gordon Klingenschmitt. Generally people who are full of themselves and are braggarts also push my buttons.
Yes I know. Hebrews, James, Jude, and 3 John also had detractors. 1st Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas had supporters. This is relevant, why?
Which is why, if you read my earlier posts, I admitted that I cannot understand the Revelation symbolism at all. But I can understand the John, in crystal clear language, was writing about something, whatever it was, that would happen soon from his perspective, not millennia in the future. That in fact is the beauty of the Preterist position. The time references in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are in simple, unambiguous language which Preterism accepts at face value.
And that wasn't your only point. You were clearly making the point that since I didn't attend seminary I was not qualified to make theological comments, and that I should defer to people like yourself.
Which is of course nonsense. I'm a physicist. If you say something wrong about physics, I won't say "you are wrong and I am right cause I have a Ph.D." I'll say you are wrong and tell you why you are wrong. You haven't said much about why I am wrong (a little in your last post), just that I am not qualified.
Of course there are many references to the persecution under Domitian--I made no claim that no such references existed. What is relevant is the relative scale of the persecutions: Nero compared to Domitian. It is universally accepted that Nero's persecution was orders of magnitude greater. That is relevant in the question of who was the "tyrant" when Clement of Alexandria wrote: When after the death of the tyrant he [John] removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus. If you are asserting that it is clear from the context that he was referring to Domitian and not Nero, well I'd like a reference to the analysis that makes it obvious.
Some scholars may teach that, some may teach something else, but none can prove their position. Because if one treats Julius as the first king (yes I know he didn't have the title of emperor) that makes Nero the sixth, suggestive of (but not required for) the Preterist view. This counting may be wrong--but it is not at all unreasonable and many, including Josephus, considered Julius the 1st Roman emperor. Of course the Preterist view doesn't rely on interpreting this difficult passage--in fact I would say the Preterist view has a much stronger footing in the Olivet Discourse.
As for Gentry, you might want to read his book before spewing the simple ad hominem concerning his seminary. The value of his research should be judged on the book, not his alma mater. Personally I don't like most of Gentry's writing--he a textbook Presbyterian postmillennial theonomist, and I despise theonomy. I think he is 100% wrong concerning OT law. But Before Jerusalem Fell is well researched and documented. It is not as if he is the first and only person to hold that view--Preterism is as old as Christianity. However he did, in effect, write a comprehensive review article on the evidence for both the early and late dating of Revelation.
Posted by: heddle | June 4, 2009 12:42 AM
Yeah I'm sure Jesus beams prophesies into people's heads! Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | June 4, 2009 6:28 AM
a textbook Presbyterian postmillennial theonomist
Woahhhaa that sounds pretty dreadful...
Posted by: 386sx | June 4, 2009 6:32 AM
Heddle,
Just a sidebar: do you believe that Jesus will return at some point in the future? If Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are out, is there any scripture to support that idea, something that could not possibly refer to events in the 1st century?
Posted by: DaveL | June 4, 2009 6:37 AM
Capt. Holcombe,
I'd like to second democommie's opinion. The first time I saw your comments here was several months ago, in a thread about religious coercion in the Armed Forces; it might have been your first time here. I felt then and still feel that you're an exceptional person.
Question - you said,
I believe there is a Higher Power and I believe that Jesus was unique in his person and work. Having said that, I don't believe 5% of what has come to us over the years as the prejudices, superstitions and distortions at the hands of men claiming to know the will of God.
There was a time in which I would have agreed with this (from a non-Christian perspective). Part of my problem is that, if there is a higher power, and it has revealed itself, it's done so through sets of texts that are told from the human perspective. At the risk of sounding like an fundamentalist - how would one go about the task of discerning the human influence from the divine? And why couldn't it have revealed itself to us more fully and directly? If the answer is that it's so far removed from us that this is the best it can do - of what relevance is it to our lives? I know people who feel they connect to it on a regular basis through meditation and prayer. I'm cynical regarding these claims (I think it's self-generated), but, in any case, I have no such ability. Moreover, I really don't care about immortality (human life is about all I can handle!) Perhaps, then, I should ask - of what relevance is it to someone like myself?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 4, 2009 7:51 AM
DaveL,
Christ has come back many times. For example, he made many appearances before the Ascension. Yet when he was not with the Apostles, there is no reason to believe he was chillaxing in a motel. He (I believe) had already assumed the Throne, and was returning to earth at times to prepare the Apostles for the caretaking of the early church.
But I think you mean: will there be an ultimate "Second" coming that signifies the end of history?
Yes, I think so, but I am of the moderate Preterist view. Note the passages that, for example, describe the resurrection of the dead (e.g., Acts 24:15). I believe they describe the end of history in general terms--Christ will come to judge the living and the dead--The Second Coming if you will. Here I depart from full Preterism which teaches that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
The wiki article on Preterism is not bad, and makes a decent distinction between moderate (Partial) and full preterism.
Posted by: heddle | June 4, 2009 8:18 AM
Heddle:
In 88 above you said that you didn't think I was correct re Caird and Charles and dating of Revelation. You asked, "Do you have references?" I provided direct quotes from works of both showing their agreement with the later date. I have also had time to do a little checking as to the findings of other scholars re date of Revelation. I have yet to find any New Testament Scholars of note who accept the earlier date. Furthermore, I cannot find the term "Preterist" in any of my Church History volumes, nor can I find it mentioned in any of the writings of Barth, Tillich, Bultmann, Niebuhr, Brunner or Kummel. Perhaps you could point me to a couple of major 19th and 20th century theologians or church history scholars who write about Preterism. Thanks.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 4, 2009 7:54 PM
Jeff Eyges:
Your questions are legitimate and I take them seriously. I believe that most of us pass through times that can only be referred to as "dark nights of the soul." During these times, the last thing we need is a religious zealot speaking divine donkeyisms to our pain and emptiness. I also believe that we keep ourselves in the "abyss" longer than we need to because we are determined that we have to "connect" to the Higher Power in a way that is tangible and capable of being measured empirically. While this can happen, it may not happen; indeed, it usually doesn't happen. What is required is that we bravely live our lives whether or not we ever "connect" with the Wholly Other in a measurable way. This is the essence of faith. The "know it all" super religious people of our day speak of faith but what they really claim is certitude. That's why they build these ridiculous "scaffolds of faith" and call them predestination, supra lapsarianism, infra lapsarianism, preterism, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, a-millenialism and a host of other foolish constructions that were labeled heresy by the Church in its infancy.
I can only speak for myself on this matter. I have faith because I received faith from a community of people who preceded me. I continue to "unclutter" my soul and make things as simple as I can. It's sort of like the song "Kodachrome" - "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, It's a wonder I can think at all." To put it in Sunday School terms, such issues as how one is baptized, how often one takes communion, whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, what is the mark of the beast, when is Jesus coming back, what are the signs of the end of time and all that other stuff that the super-religious think are so important really don't mount to a hill of beans in the big picture. Is the Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God and free of contradictions and errors? Of course it isn't and it really doesn't make any difference whether one believes that or not. I am content to live with Micah 6:8 - "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." That and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1 - 7:27) are sufficient for me.
I recommend that you read Paul Tillich's small volume entitled "The Courage To Be" (New Haven & London, Yale University Press, 1952, 197 pages). Tillich speaks to how we should experience those times akin to "the dark night of the soul." He says, "The courage to be is the ethical act in which man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of his existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation" (p. 3).
The foolishness of much of religion in America is the belief that claiming faith entitles one to advantages and guarantees that things will always work out just right for us. This simply isn't so. Kierkegaard tells us that the important thing is to take the "leap of faith into the dark." God may very well catch us as we plunge toward the terrors and dangers that the darkness hold; however, he may not choose to catch us. None of that is important. What is important is that we take the leap of faith in the dark; that we have the "courage to be," regardless of the outcome.
This is not the proper forum for addressing your questions and I hope that I have not further confused you. Embrace life, have the courage to "be," and don't expect that you will receive any rewards or advantages because of your faith or your non-faith. Do justice, love kindness and live among your human neighbors with compassion and humility. In my experience, when life seems to have slipped from my grasp, it does not show up for me again through some connection with God. It always shows up for me again through some other person or persons.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 4, 2009 11:05 PM
Capt. Holcombe,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and sensitive answer. I am familiar with "The Courage to Be". I started reading it decades ago, but unfortunately became distracted and never got around to going back to it. I am, however, aware of Tillich's position (and Kierkegaard's).
My problem (and I think you'd agree with this) is that I can't see that a belief in God is necessary in order to mandate compassion or ethical behavior. We're probably hardwired for it. It doesn't really speak to the issue of whether or not God exists, or, if he does, whether or not that's relevant. As a personality, he's extremely unreliable, and, if it's an impersonal absolute - again, what does that do for us? It does nothing to alleviate or mitigate the suffering of sentient beings, unless one has an ability to "connect" to it and draw support from it - an ability that many of us lack. I realize that a person of faith could easily label this a selfish attitude, and could claim that the proper question is, "What can we do for it?", but I'd argue that God, having created us, bears an unimaginable weight of responsibility for the suffering of all of creation - free will or no.
I appreciate your advice (really), but, as to the matter of embracing life, and whether or not to take the "leap" - I think it's largely a matter of orientation or inherent ability, and who really understands the complex combination of hereditary and environmental factors that make us what we are? In my view, this completely delegitimizes the fundamentalist claim (well, the Arian one, at any rate!) that "accepting" God in the person of Jesus is a "free will choice" - but, of course, I realize that wasn't your point. The bottom line is that taking the leap of faith simply isn't in some of our natures.
Yes, I agree that this isn't the proper forum. You may want to start a blog of your own, if you have the inclination and the time. You have some valuable things to say.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 5, 2009 7:30 AM
Jeff Eyges:
"Yes, I agree that this isn't the proper forum. You may want to start a blog of your own, if you have the inclination and the time. You have some valuable things to say."
Maybe it could be called "Holy Wars" ;)
Posted by: democommie | June 5, 2009 10:20 AM
Jeff:
"Yes" to everything that you have said! Life is difficult at best, but it is exponentially difficult for those of us who dare to think about it. I agree with you that a belief in God is not necessary in order to mandate compassion or ethical behavior. However, I like the Tillich approach because he begins by asking the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I personally cannot accept a "Big Bang" theory of existence so that drives me to begin my search in terms of conceding that there is "Something" that wound up the spring and started the clock to ticking. Call it Aristotle's Prime Mover or whatever you want - it really doesn't matter. (And, of course, we can then ask "who/what moved the Prime Mover?") Enough to drive you crazy, isn't it!?
After witnessing the pain, suffering, disappointment, injustice and cruelty that I have witnessed everywhere in the world, I have become presumptious enough to believe that "God" is going to have to give an account of himself/herself/itself one of these days" (the discourse with Job notwithstanding).
By the way, you won't find any relief or any sense of understanding by discussing (arguing) these ideas with those who are absolutely certain of their religious positions. In their stubborn ignorance their only method of communication is to try to force their views upon you. And, of course, if you don't see it their way it's simply because you don't have enough faith to come to the truth. These folks generally don't know jackshit about faith. They are so frightened that their religion has to be a religion of certainty, replete with red, white and blue bunting! They haven't the courage to put their feet into the stirrups of the saddle that sits on the bucking broncho of of the Great Adventure that we call "Life."
If you must, forget about taking the leap of faith in the name of some God or another. In point of fact, you take some kind of leap of faith every morning when you swing your feet out of bed and onto the floor and prepare to meet the day. What is the principle "beyond yourself" that motivates you to do that?
By the way, I have no interest in starting a blog of my own. I'm too busy catching up on long ignored reading, playing golf, babysitting my grandchildren, and planning travel adventures with my wife of 43 years.
You are on the right track but I warn you that there are no satisfactory answers to what you are looking for. Answers simply "beget" more questions and so on and so on. Enjoy the pain and misery and give thanks for juicy peaches, sweet tomatoes, corn on the cob, and if you are really fortunate, someone who knows how to bake biscuits and make sausage gravy!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 5, 2009 10:53 AM
CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret),
How do you square this comment?
Huh? You are not sure what the common term "Preterism" means, but you are sure, even though you don't know what it means, that Caird and Charles are not Pretersists! That's a nice trick. Though I do find it odd, that you don't know what it means, since you are a new testament scholar by your own acclaim:
To your credit you recognized you were taking a risk at sounding pompous. Perhaps you'll have better luck next time.
(Where are all these papers?--I never read anything that even referenced one of your papers--is your academic corpus available on line?)
As for Preterist scholars from the 19th and 20th centuries---how many do you want? You might try John Stuart Russell. I have a "well-worn" (isn't that the term you used, to impress that you have thoroughly read the book you are about to quote?) copy of his magnum opus, The Parousia. In the 20th century you have, as one example, R. C. Sproul. Also, though I do not know for sure if he claims the title, the eschatology writings of N. T. Wright, arguably the preeminent NT scholar of our day, are Pretereist. That I can back up with excerpts if you like--though since you don't know what Preterism means I guess anything short Wright or Charles or Caird putting "Preterist At Large" on their business cards would fail to convince you.
It is reasonable that you could claim to be a NT scholar, hold a seminary degree from Duke and a Ph.D from Vanderbilt, have written many papers of NT scholarship, and disagree with Preterism, or favor a late date for Revelation. After all, that would put you in the majority. But it is unbelievable that a NT scholar such as yourself doesn't know what Preterism means--a view that was once quite popular (before the rise of dispensationalism, especially in Europe), has always had a core of followers and scholarly supporters, and has recently been growing at a decent clip, mostly independent of but not unrelated to the recent growth in Calvinism.
Posted by: heddle | June 5, 2009 11:31 AM
heddle responds to a possibly-incorrect but complex and carefully-stated oppinion thusly:
Thanks for reminding me that you can be such a pompous dick.
And thank YOU, heddle, for reminding us all how the most self-righteous Bible-worshippers react when their assumptions are questioned in even the most polite and fact-based way. Bloody Hell, heddle, if you're that brittle in the face of independent thought, maybe you should get off the blogosphere and live in a monestary. Oh wait, some monastics are known for having free-range brain-cells too, so maybe that's not such a good idea for you.
I don't know enough to judge Holcomb's arguments on this, but I will say he's proven himself a credible if imperfect source on nearly all of the subjects on which he's commented here; and his opinions on this subject are, at the very least, thought out for more than one minute, and take more than a minute to refute. Calling him a "pompous dick" is yet another in a series of new lows for you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 1:12 PM
By the way, you won't find any relief or any sense of understanding by discussing (arguing) these ideas with those who are absolutely certain of their religious positions.
Yeah, I've noticed!
In point of fact, you take some kind of leap of faith every morning when you swing your feet out of bed and onto the floor and prepare to meet the day. What is the principle "beyond yourself" that motivates you to do that?
Truthfully, it's getting harder and harder. There isn't much worth getting out of bed for these days.
Oh, I keep putting an "e" at the end of your name. Sorry!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 5, 2009 2:01 PM
My reference to preterism in terms of "whatever that means" is in recognition of the fact that it has meant so many different things to different people that it really is one of those "pay your money and take your choice" concepts. It seems that as proponents of "preterism" began to encounter both historical and exegetical difficulties they attempted to justify their positions by becoming more and more willing to take exception to orthodoxy, the creeds and sound exegetical principles. My guess is that the concept was so weak and historically indefensible that it was relegated to the world of "fringe" ideas and not given much (if any) consideration at the "liberal" schools where I was educated. I honestly cannot remember the term "preterist" mentioned in a single class lecture. Some time was given to the eschatological positions of premillennialsim, postmellennialism and amillennialism. Charles C. Ryrie was never recognized in any of my theology studies but I have read him because I found him to be an honest, humble man of great religious stature. He is an admitted premillennialist and writes extensively regarding the various eschatological viewpoints. In his book, "Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth," he doesn't even mention preterism. I do not know why this is so but I do find it curious that he doesn't speak to the topic. I say all this to say that I do not believe that "preterism" is not now nor has it ever been anywhere near as "popular" in general theological studies as you seem to advocate.
By your own guidelines, neither Caird nor Wright can be identified as preterists. You wrote: "The dating of Revelation is as important as it is disputed. Some favor an earlier date (A.D. 64-69) while some a later date (A.D. 90). The reason for its importance is that a later date annihilates preterism . . . . If Revelation was written after Jerusalem was destroyed, as the late date would have it, then obviously Revelation is not about that event, and preterism is dead." Neither Caird nor Charles accepts the earlier date, with or without "Preterist At Large" on their business cards. By the way, I find N. T. Wright to be a very thought-provoking author. On the other hand, I have better things to do than read the likes of R. C. Sproul.
No, I do not have an "academic corpus" on line. With the exception of a few articles over the years, that "corpus" is largely contained in my own files as a record of pastoral work that I have done (Bible studies, sermons, pursuit of personal topics of interest, etc.). My faith commitment has been to the service of people in the pastoral sense. You, of course, would be welcome to visit with me at my home office and read/discuss anything that I have written. I assure you that I have been as academically rigorous in what I have prepared for consumption by the people I have been called to serve as I was during completion of classwork/studies. Furthermore, I would receive you and treat you with far more civility and respect than is sometimes demonstrated by certain other people.
This is the last I have to say on this topic since I do not believe (rightly or wrongly) that it can be adequately defended. Proverbs 12:11 says, "He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment" (NIV). I have planted some tomatoes, corn, beans, lettuce and cabbage and the recent rain has brought forth not only their growth but the growth of weeds as well. During the next couple of days, my time will be best spent at working in the garden. I can hardly wait for those delicious tomatoes to get here. Isn't life great?! Far too great and good to devote one's days to disdain and contempt for anyone or anything!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 7, 2009 1:37 PM
Capt. Norm Holcomb:
If we are niz, we kin haz BLT'z when tomatoes are ryp?
Posted by: democommie | June 7, 2009 8:52 PM
With mayonnaise and toasted bread! Also, I like a sandwich with nothing but mayonnaise, thick tomato slices and salt and pepper. One of my fondest memories is that of having lunch with my grandmother when I was 5 or 6 years old. We had biscuits left over from breakfast, "fat back bacon" left over from breakfast, and ripe tomatoes from her garden. I guess most people would turn up their nose at that kind of fare today, but I still think that it's as good as it gets!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | June 7, 2009 9:34 PM
First century Norm Holcomb:
"I was trained at Jerusalem. Who is this Galilean that he should challenge my scriptural exegesis?"
Holcomb,
You need to get over yourself.
Posted by: Rudeger | June 7, 2009 11:09 PM
Rudeger:
WTF are you talking about? Are you a friend of heddle's or just stupid?
Posted by: democommie | June 7, 2009 11:17 PM
Democommie, you worthless, old, deluded pos,
My meaning was plain and only a moron would ask for clarification.
Posted by: Rudeger | June 7, 2009 11:21 PM
"who are you to challenge my scriptural exegesis?"
- why, i'm jesus, silly
oh, you're the one who's sense of justice allows himself to sit in judgment of judges and simultaneously forbid anyone else to judge you...such is your sense of justice....you're the one whose followers have to perform amazing mental gymnastics (read: lying) to explain how their three gods are actually all really just you....
nothing to question there, at all...
Posted by: jws | June 8, 2009 1:39 AM
First century Norm Holcomb:
"I was trained at Jerusalem. Who is this Galilean that he should challenge my scriptural exegesis?"
Holcomb,
You need to get over yourself.
Oh, I love it when they pull this crap. Democommie, he's calling Capt. Holcomb a Pharisee. He happened by and saw something that scared him, so he took a potshot and ran. The idea is that "your fancy book learnin' don't amount to a hill 'o beans" in the face of one inspired by God, or something of the sort.
It's inevitable, one of the last resorts of the religiously indoctrinated who knows s/he doesn't have a leg upon which to stand.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 8, 2009 7:54 AM
Jeff - 'A leg to stand on'? Hell, this guy's a double complete amputee. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 8, 2009 8:43 AM
'Tis but a scratch...
Posted by: DaveL | June 8, 2009 8:50 AM
Rudefuck:
"Democommie, you worthless, old, deluded pos,
My meaning was plain and only a moron would ask for clarification."
Your meaning was perfectly clear, dumbass. My question was more about whether you were a member of the heddleian schismatics or just too fucking ignorant to count past 10-1/2 without removing your shoes. Obviously the question was deflected by your tinfoil halo so that you only saw the part that you already had constructed in your own, very busy, brainpan. That is really why I asked if you were an HS, because he does that quite frequently and considers it a feature not a bug.
You seem to know so much about me. Are you that gay JESUS freak that came onto me at the last "Birfers For GOD's Truth About The Obamabortionist Conspiracy"?
Posted by: democommie | June 8, 2009 12:58 PM
someone said before that Christ's bride is the men and women of the church....if Christ can take a man as his bride....why cant other men?? I say that favouritism, and I thought we were all equal in God's eyes and therefore must be equal in the church's eyes. Thus gay marriage should be commonly practiced and celebrated in the church....just sayin.
Anywho, as for the anti-christ, if it were a fabulous gay man,who wore skinny jeans and had a nice tight body, an emo fringe, and mad skills on the striper pole that would be great...i would follow that.
another thing is brought to mind...Do people believe that God can make mistakes? i thought not, and are we not all created by god's will? If god dont make no trash, why then is homosexuality wrong. if god created us the way we are, why would he punish us for his own doing? he wouldnt because acording to all those pardon my language "bible thumpers" out there god loves each and every one of his children equally. and its not a rainbow without the pink, so let us be who we are and give us the same privileges as our straight counterparts :D
Posted by: triplethreatboy | July 5, 2009 2:38 PM