Intractability and the Antichrist
July 9, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
It is a rarity that we encounter Apprentices with an enthusiastic greeting of “I appreciate you”. we don’t believe that this typical lack of enthusiasm is due to my not acknowledging the various aptitudes and virtues of Apprentices or those closest to me ( I look forward to reading future Apprentice Rupert’s initial paper into The Wonderful World of the Occult™ on a topic I suggested: “The Benefits to Society of Human Sacrifice”), rather I believe that it is attributed to familiarity.
Apprentices are not Masters because their work, their calling, is not our calling- they work in different fields of the Lord, sowing and reaping I know not what. While we understand broad concepts of my Apprentices callings, we do not fully understand what they do, nor do we need to know. Such is one benefit of vicarious living. While my momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.”, this sentiment is not applicable to my Apprentices.
Fred wrote that philosophers of the future must create new values and while we are uncertain that “I recognize your worth” is the creation of a new value, rather than the statement of a fact; we believe that “Have the day you deserve” upon parting, may be “catchy” enough to replace the equally vague “Live long and prosper” of a former Apprentice.
We maintain that the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” does reveal Jesus Christ, but not as most readers suppose, where Jesus informs the reader of future events; for that understanding would deny the singular aspect of the title and create a contradiction between the title and the contents. When one synthesizes various aspects of the book, there is only one reasonable conclusion.
The salient clues are:
Apprentices are not Masters because their work, their calling, is not our calling- they work in different fields of the Lord, sowing and reaping I know not what. While we understand broad concepts of my Apprentices callings, we do not fully understand what they do, nor do we need to know. Such is one benefit of vicarious living. While my momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.”, this sentiment is not applicable to my Apprentices.
Fred wrote that philosophers of the future must create new values and while we are uncertain that “I recognize your worth” is the creation of a new value, rather than the statement of a fact; we believe that “Have the day you deserve” upon parting, may be “catchy” enough to replace the equally vague “Live long and prosper” of a former Apprentice.
We maintain that the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” does reveal Jesus Christ, but not as most readers suppose, where Jesus informs the reader of future events; for that understanding would deny the singular aspect of the title and create a contradiction between the title and the contents. When one synthesizes various aspects of the book, there is only one reasonable conclusion.
The salient clues are:
The singular revealing of Jesus Christ and not multiple revealings.
“Babylon is fallen, is fallen” Constantinople fell in 1204 and 1453.
“And the number of his name is 666.” The numerical value of this phrase in Greek is 2,368.
“Jesus Christ” The numerical value of this phrase in Greek is 2,368.
The author is works, not faith, orientated and this demonstrates either an ignorance or disregard for Saint Paul’s theology.
The mark of the beast is placed on the forehead, similar to chrism placed on the forehead.
“Babylon is fallen, is fallen” Constantinople fell in 1204 and 1453.
“And the number of his name is 666.” The numerical value of this phrase in Greek is 2,368.
“Jesus Christ” The numerical value of this phrase in Greek is 2,368.
The author is works, not faith, orientated and this demonstrates either an ignorance or disregard for Saint Paul’s theology.
The mark of the beast is placed on the forehead, similar to chrism placed on the forehead.
2
Since no follower of Christ could write a phrase that equates the beast with Jesus Christ, we must conclude the author or redactor was not a Christian. This conclusion is supported by the various condemnations of inappropriate works, among which is the “worshiping” of idols or veneration of icons. The mark of Christ is the cross of chrism placed on the forehead in the Christian rite. We reason that the author is writing after the year 1453, since Babylon has fallen twice. The author is clearly pleased that this “idolatrous” city, this seat of the beast, of the Orthodox church, has been conquered.
While the Orthodox Church agreed with the Roman Church’s listing for the books of a Bible in the ancient epoch in the year 1672 AD, we cannot but bring to the reader's attention that if he were to attend an Orthodox Church for one year, he would hear the great majority of the New Testament, but no quotes from Revelation. This indicates that the ancient Church did not know this book or, if it did know of its existence, did not approve for it to be read in Church. As always, the Gentle Reader will drawn their own conclusion as to why this New Testament book would be excluded from the Orthodox lectionary.
While we patiently wait for the Orthodox Church to dogmatically inform the world what a “Bible” is and we eagerly wait for the Roman Church to bring forth a new Vulgate based on a Bible with “long established usage” (per the instructions of the Council of Trent), we offer the Gentle Reader the following diversion that is more enlightening than modern commentary which rarely rises above repetition of various speculations.
Over my life we have encountered various misfortunes. While we rarely expect anyone to possess our extensive knowledge of a Bible, we do expect reason from everyone we meet. However, whenever we discuss a Bible and its content with persons disposed toward intractability, we never discuss it again, for while the King James’ Bible is written at a six grade reading level, we do not wish to engage twelve year old youths in Biblical topics. The encountered intractability is the “belief in a Bible’ or various statements to that effect. It seems that the belief in a Bible and the belief in being a Christian are so closing bound in the modern age that they have become synonymous, as though there were no adherents to the teaching of Christ before Erasmus’ creation of the New Teachings or the New Testament in the early 16th century. Vague and ill defined beliefs in or concerning a Bible has two observed results- denial of reason and denial of reality.
The denial of reason is experienced at the instance that Biblical contradictions are mentioned, as though the belief in the veracity of any book, or the belief in anything, precludes thinking or reasoning. No doubt that psychologists also have been challenged by the “neurotics”, who see behavior as a duality and not a spectrum, or adherents of western Christianity. Perhaps the most devolved statement referred to our “perfect writing”, to which we responded that our writing has no contradictions except intentional, and adhere to the rules of English grammar.
While the Orthodox Church agreed with the Roman Church’s listing for the books of a Bible in the ancient epoch in the year 1672 AD, we cannot but bring to the reader's attention that if he were to attend an Orthodox Church for one year, he would hear the great majority of the New Testament, but no quotes from Revelation. This indicates that the ancient Church did not know this book or, if it did know of its existence, did not approve for it to be read in Church. As always, the Gentle Reader will drawn their own conclusion as to why this New Testament book would be excluded from the Orthodox lectionary.
While we patiently wait for the Orthodox Church to dogmatically inform the world what a “Bible” is and we eagerly wait for the Roman Church to bring forth a new Vulgate based on a Bible with “long established usage” (per the instructions of the Council of Trent), we offer the Gentle Reader the following diversion that is more enlightening than modern commentary which rarely rises above repetition of various speculations.
Over my life we have encountered various misfortunes. While we rarely expect anyone to possess our extensive knowledge of a Bible, we do expect reason from everyone we meet. However, whenever we discuss a Bible and its content with persons disposed toward intractability, we never discuss it again, for while the King James’ Bible is written at a six grade reading level, we do not wish to engage twelve year old youths in Biblical topics. The encountered intractability is the “belief in a Bible’ or various statements to that effect. It seems that the belief in a Bible and the belief in being a Christian are so closing bound in the modern age that they have become synonymous, as though there were no adherents to the teaching of Christ before Erasmus’ creation of the New Teachings or the New Testament in the early 16th century. Vague and ill defined beliefs in or concerning a Bible has two observed results- denial of reason and denial of reality.
The denial of reason is experienced at the instance that Biblical contradictions are mentioned, as though the belief in the veracity of any book, or the belief in anything, precludes thinking or reasoning. No doubt that psychologists also have been challenged by the “neurotics”, who see behavior as a duality and not a spectrum, or adherents of western Christianity. Perhaps the most devolved statement referred to our “perfect writing”, to which we responded that our writing has no contradictions except intentional, and adhere to the rules of English grammar.
3
“I just wanna waste your time" is more than a lyric, it the apex of some people’s conversations. “No, I don’t wanna see your pics, we don’t hafta go that far”. While “5,000 Biblical Contradictions” was never a bestseller, it does bring to one’s attention that inerrancy comes in multiple forms- a Bible with Apocrypha, a Bible without the Apocrypha and the Koran. At least we acknowledge the Koran has no variants. The fruits of the intractably of beliefs are irrational and untenable.
The denial of reality is similar to, and intimately related to, the denial of reasoning. A Bible becomes a closed system without rhyme or reason, where characters and raison d'etre are contrived to instill awe and obedience to the lowest type of person. We understand Saint Paul’s advice that after three attempts at reasoning, to let the blind lead the blind, or did he write “the God of this world has blinded the minds of those who reason not”? Regardless as to the reason why, the result is the same.
Philosophy created the next world of punishments and rewards to keep the rabble from pursuing their irrational impulses in society and today the vulgar are attempting to enforce their expanded and contradictory beliefs on us. This is the reversal of the natural order. We cannot “agree to disagree” when the topic is either reason or reality. This is a meaningless statement. They suppose it is better to say it, and seem to act accommodating and noble, rather than looking foolish when confronted with their unreasonableness. We see their ingratitude in their every word and gesture and we would allow them to go their way, were it not for their contempt for ideas or individuals who are not mediocre and exhibit non herd instincts. In that regard we are different, as we fear neither reason nor reality nor nature, but the irrational and unpredictable emotionally laden responses of the vulgar, all-too-vulgar. If knowledge has no obligation to ignorance, then Greatness owes no apology to mediocrity. Their appeals to virtues that they know nothing of, fall under the rock of reason and are pulverized. We long for the fleeting moments when we interact with equal minds where we do not have to restrain either our intellect or our natural enthusiasm for life.
The intractability to reality is the cause of the problems of our modern age. “Et Credo in”, as though any reasonable mind has ever asked for belief, in things not seen, in fantasies and phantasms, whether great or small. We have only asked for reason, only natural reason, not superhuman reasoning, but even a modicum of that is never forthcoming. We foresee the day that these intractable people will be seen as the major issue to the well being of our society and, while we refuse to predict or speculate as to what explicitly will transpire, we expect harsh measures against internal threats to the body politic.
While the antichrist found in “The Revelation of Christ” is represented in Protestant Christian imaginings as an unreasonable demonic force set on world domination who beguiles and is aided by the “false” prophet’s machinations, we suggest otherwise. The inherent contradiction that the Antichrist will enlarge Christ’s kingdom by executing those unwilling to worship the beast needs no comment. If the rapture were to happen as expected by modern Christian commentaries, we suggest that no mass executions of Christians will take place since they will no longer be present to present an obstacle to the Antichrist’s plans. Once again the author is either ignorant of or ignores Saint Paul’s theology. As Revelation unfolds, it seems that people are tripping over themselves to get the mark or the name or the number of his name and, yet the book does not give the reader any reason for this rush into the Antichrist’s camp. The reader must supply the reason-resentment. Resentment not for certain people being Christians or for their beliefs, for that would be unreasonable, but for their insistence against reason, against history, that they are correct to the exclusion of everyone else, where everyone else are the lost and the eternally damnable. Their insistence that all of creation and all of reality and all of humanity must conform to their beliefs, Biblical or otherwise, and their prescribed behavior is the reason for their persecution. Is their persecution reasonable? No, but neither was their intractability. Is it understandable? Yes, but only in light of resentment.
Ultimately, our imagined Antichrist or superman will turn people's intractability against themselves and they will suffer for their intractability. Yes, he can be described as cruel by those individuals who assign beauty to nature, instead of indifference, wastefulness, and cruelty.
Those who live by intractability and unreasonableness will die by intractability and resentment.
So mote it be.
The denial of reality is similar to, and intimately related to, the denial of reasoning. A Bible becomes a closed system without rhyme or reason, where characters and raison d'etre are contrived to instill awe and obedience to the lowest type of person. We understand Saint Paul’s advice that after three attempts at reasoning, to let the blind lead the blind, or did he write “the God of this world has blinded the minds of those who reason not”? Regardless as to the reason why, the result is the same.
Philosophy created the next world of punishments and rewards to keep the rabble from pursuing their irrational impulses in society and today the vulgar are attempting to enforce their expanded and contradictory beliefs on us. This is the reversal of the natural order. We cannot “agree to disagree” when the topic is either reason or reality. This is a meaningless statement. They suppose it is better to say it, and seem to act accommodating and noble, rather than looking foolish when confronted with their unreasonableness. We see their ingratitude in their every word and gesture and we would allow them to go their way, were it not for their contempt for ideas or individuals who are not mediocre and exhibit non herd instincts. In that regard we are different, as we fear neither reason nor reality nor nature, but the irrational and unpredictable emotionally laden responses of the vulgar, all-too-vulgar. If knowledge has no obligation to ignorance, then Greatness owes no apology to mediocrity. Their appeals to virtues that they know nothing of, fall under the rock of reason and are pulverized. We long for the fleeting moments when we interact with equal minds where we do not have to restrain either our intellect or our natural enthusiasm for life.
The intractability to reality is the cause of the problems of our modern age. “Et Credo in”, as though any reasonable mind has ever asked for belief, in things not seen, in fantasies and phantasms, whether great or small. We have only asked for reason, only natural reason, not superhuman reasoning, but even a modicum of that is never forthcoming. We foresee the day that these intractable people will be seen as the major issue to the well being of our society and, while we refuse to predict or speculate as to what explicitly will transpire, we expect harsh measures against internal threats to the body politic.
While the antichrist found in “The Revelation of Christ” is represented in Protestant Christian imaginings as an unreasonable demonic force set on world domination who beguiles and is aided by the “false” prophet’s machinations, we suggest otherwise. The inherent contradiction that the Antichrist will enlarge Christ’s kingdom by executing those unwilling to worship the beast needs no comment. If the rapture were to happen as expected by modern Christian commentaries, we suggest that no mass executions of Christians will take place since they will no longer be present to present an obstacle to the Antichrist’s plans. Once again the author is either ignorant of or ignores Saint Paul’s theology. As Revelation unfolds, it seems that people are tripping over themselves to get the mark or the name or the number of his name and, yet the book does not give the reader any reason for this rush into the Antichrist’s camp. The reader must supply the reason-resentment. Resentment not for certain people being Christians or for their beliefs, for that would be unreasonable, but for their insistence against reason, against history, that they are correct to the exclusion of everyone else, where everyone else are the lost and the eternally damnable. Their insistence that all of creation and all of reality and all of humanity must conform to their beliefs, Biblical or otherwise, and their prescribed behavior is the reason for their persecution. Is their persecution reasonable? No, but neither was their intractability. Is it understandable? Yes, but only in light of resentment.
Ultimately, our imagined Antichrist or superman will turn people's intractability against themselves and they will suffer for their intractability. Yes, he can be described as cruel by those individuals who assign beauty to nature, instead of indifference, wastefulness, and cruelty.
Those who live by intractability and unreasonableness will die by intractability and resentment.
So mote it be.