Comment by kodoman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodoman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss.

His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt.

I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.

I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.

>At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.

That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway.

One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon.

One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.

> That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway.

It’s “Book of Revelation”. Singular. Probably because it talks about Jesus being revealed to the whole world. He will be revealed once and for all, so singular.

Regarding Revelation being behind us. It will be as clear as thunder visible from the east to the west and many cities will be destroyed etc what didn’t happen yet I’m sure. Bible warned that people will try to convince us that it has passed already. Quoting KJV from 1611 because I like the used language and find it a clear text.

2 Thess 2, “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

I am someone who is unsure of per-millenial post-millennial debate and would roughly consider myself a recapitulationist of some kind. I do not think you can use it in that way to argue against post-millennial for one the post-millennial would simply say that Pual is writing to the Thessalonians is still in the pre-millennial phase.

I feel are theology is different but I do not see the passage you gave as a good counter to identification of with the 70 AD. One can also hold that 70 AD was part of part of revelation but it's still to be fulfilled and completed. 70 AD seems to be something christ does predict and in astonishing fashion and a deeply important apocalyptic event.

I understand your theory regarding 70 AD and find it not completely implausible, but I don’t see much evidence for most of the events from Revelation 13 and 16 having occurred already. Especially Revelation 13:15 and 13:17 would be possible only with modern technology it seems to me.

First of all this is not my theory, I did not put it forward other then to illustrate the argument. the Argument for those parts would roughly be that taking the whole chapter is talking of Nero's persecution of the early church, also in particular martyrs and saints following in Christs sacrifice, One can argue that 13:17 is bowing down and accepting the pagan imperial roman cult and Nero's claim to be emperor (which requires him to call himself a god as per the roman tradition) and they are must bare the mark of the emperor (coinage or simply allegiance you decide) and 13:15 can be understood few fold first that the injury of the beast is the Judaea end of Judea (the temple falling but more importantly the weakening of the roman jewish kings (Herodian line ending before the fall of the temple) and the persecution of Christians now happening to in Rome (outside of Judaea/Palestine) in the image of Herod. Over all this lines up some fairly well. Finally 16 can be interrupted as the Plague of Rome or any wrath of god that one could interpreting as falling on Rome. For me however I would give the importance here (weather this is in the future or past) to the experience and something that greatly accords with gods wrath and judgement generalized into the apocalypse that we all face are death, Should we curse God for are suffering we shell be hated and put to hell righteously and are sufferings show the greatness of God and glorify god the blasphemy becoming the blade to torment the blasphemer and the to aid the vengeful angels in their ordering of the universe to reveal gods glory.

Finally A point I feel you might disagree with but would be something I hold given we are talking about this period Constantine is ordained by god and it's Constantine that redeems Rome and finally gives us the counsel of Nicaea and Catholic Church (One may hold Catholic as per the Nicean creed not the necessarily modern day Roman Catholic Church, indeed most Churches hold they are Catholic in that sense.).

Again I am unsure as to the interpretation of the Revelation and do in that their is no dogma or authoritative interpretation and sources that I hold authoritative conflict I am unsure, but I find it an amazing book that is important to me.

Let me also clarify that this is not Tertullian position either he is firmly a futurist (At least of his time). I think Tertullian made many mistakes though he is a great doctor of the church.

Their was no consensus amongst the Fathers of the church or later Christians and little dogma on the subject. Tertullian did hold that the their is a figure of anti-christ, a singular figure teaching some kind of heresy and ruling, actually a looking a lot like premillennial low church Christianity today (not that I like these groups but there is some president though Tertullian would find plenty to disagree with elsewhere in particular the restraint on the antichrist is Rome and prays for the continuation of imperial rome) eschatology is highly contested and it's difficult to give one set answer and the actual positions of the Fathers varies so much and the reformers complicate this again.(Connecting to my other other post on my country, By law when the 'humble divines' settled this in parliament (because parliament under the protectorate had the authority to settle such things would you believe) set forward the Westminster confession one of the precepts is that you proclaim that the bishop of Rome the pope is the anti-christ.)

Talking about historical sources, this verse from the King James Version from 1611 agrees with you.

1 John 2:18, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

The antichrist is often correctly or incorrectly made synonymous with the son of perdition, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,

“ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

Those that tend to hold to ideas of singular anti-christ and as you pointed out identify anti-christ with the son of perdition and also the false prophet and sometimes little horn in Daniel, often still maintain the plural the plural quality of the word to mean those who follow heresy while still maintaining there is one false prophet who will exalt him or someone or something above god or sometimes simply deny god or gods true nature (basically any heresy). I think Tertullian has in mind Arianism or Marcionism or some other major heresy. My point was that Schmit is reading Tertullian and closely and holds very different positions to Thiel who holds very different things and the identification of the Katchon as a negative force seems unique and I have not seen before and goes competely against Tertullian and Schmit (who is making the consept corrupt but in a much smarter way then Thiel does In my opinion).

I do however think the views of the Fathers can not simply be dismissed and hold them in high esteem and as partially authoritative even outside counsels.

I’m surprised you capitalize “the Fathers” and write “god” lowercase

I am not sure what your point is, I hold the fathers as at least partially authoritative, I do not hold the fathers above God, nor do I hold any theology or translation above God, God is the source of truth. If you feel you can simply disregard the fathers and the apostolic fathers, I would like to hear it. As though it seems we hold different theology how can you simply cast aside and not hold these sources with authority?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com