I’m curious about how bible literalists that don’t believe in the antichrist interpret that part of Revelations.
Revelation (no ‘s’) doesn’t really have the narrative that “Biblical literalists” think it does. The Beast isn’t said to be the Antichrist - the “Antichrist” isn’t mentioned in Revelation at all, only in John IIRC - a lot of this is coming from Scofield and Darby. People before the 1800s did not believe in the narrative of “there’s a rapture where Christians disappear, the Antichrist takes over for 7 years, all of these prophecies are fulfilled, and the Jesus comes back.”
It’s basically all made up through connecting unrelated passages in Daniel and Ezekiel. Premillennial dispensationalism is new and not reading the Bible “literally” at all.
I know the rapture doesn’t exist in the Bible but “the beast” does. What is the beast to literalists?
Could be an Antichrist, could be a natural desire, could be Emperor Nero, could be something else. Being a “Biblical literalist” isn’t really something that makes sense, because at some point you do have to accept that some things are metaphor. The line being drawn is arbitrary, even if “literalists” don’t like to admit it. Revelation is especially obtuse and symbolic - though it does make sense if you realize it’s probably about Nero and John of Patmos was tripping balls on some kind of psilocybin.
Revelation almost didn’t even make it in the Bible - the Shepherd of Hermas was more popular. I don’t think Jerome liked it.
and the Jesus comes back
Everybody please remember that you do not fuck with the Jesus.
Guaranteed to have a typo when you nitpick spelling, but that sentence works well when read in a Ricky Bobby voice.
The “Revelations” thing is a really funny way to pull off the classic atheist power move of knowing the Bible better than a Christian. Great for trolling eschatological TikTok and Facebook accounts.
