Can We Wrap This Up?

ROME (Reuters) - Peter Thiel, the U.S. billionaire venture capitalist and early supporter of President Donald Trump, launched on Sunday a series of closed-door lectures in Rome exploring the concept of the Antichrist, drawing scrutiny from Catholic commentators, @crispiandjb…

— Phil Stewart (@phildstewart) March 15, 2026

ROME (Reuters) - Peter Thiel, the U.S. billionaire venture capitalist and early supporter of President Donald Trump, launched on Sunday a series of closed-door lectures in Rome exploring the concept of the Antichrist, drawing scrutiny from Catholic commentators, @crispiandjb reports.

The invitation-only conference, which runs until Wednesday, is not open to the press and its venue has not been publicly disclosed. Organisers quoted in the media say participants are drawn from academia, technology and religious circles.

A co-founder of Palantir Technologies, an AI software company with deep ties to the U.S. defense and intelligence agencies, Thiel has in recent years devoted increasing attention to religious and philosophical ideas.

Last year he held a similar series of talks in San Francisco exploring the possibility that the Antichrist - a figure who opposes or denies Christ - could emerge on the global stage.

In particular, Thiel has said he is wary that an Antichrist will emerge who will create a one-world government on the promise of something like stopping nuclear, AI or climate-induced disaster.

Thiel, 58, grew up in an Evangelical Christian family and has said Christianity shapes his worldview.

His visit has caught the attention of the Roman Catholic Church, which, under Pope Leo, the first U.S. pontiff, has openly criticised some of Trump's right-wing policies. Leo has also warned of the dangers posed by AI.

Catholic universities in Rome denied press speculation that they might be hosting the event and no meeting is scheduled between Thiel and Leo, according to the pope's official agenda.

 Long, long ago, I knew this stuff, and actually could rattle off the differences between premillennialism and post-millennialism, and amillenialism. And critique them intelligently. How long ago? I wrote the paper about it in college. Circa 1975, IIRC. Too long ago to remember anymore (it’s an obtuse and, frankly, stupid topic; we’ll get to that), so now I have to rely on this:

Dispensationalism is a Christian theological framework for interpreting the Christian Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages called dispensations in which God interacts with his chosen people in different ways.[1]: 19  It is often distinguished from covenant theology, the traditional Reformed view of reading the Bible.[2][3] These are two competing frameworks of biblical theology that attempt to explain overall continuity in the Bible. The coining of the term "dispensationalism" has been attributed to Philip Mauro, a critic of the system's teachings, in his 1928 book The Gospel of the Kingdom.[4][5]

Dispensationalists use a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe that divine revelation unfolds throughout its narrative. They believe that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church, and that Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. They maintain beliefs in premillennialism, Christian Zionism, and a rapture of Christians before the expected Second Coming of Jesus, whom Christians believe to be the Messiah, generally before the Great Tribulation.[6]

Dispensationalism was systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century.[7]: 67  It began its spread in the United States during the late 19th century through the efforts of evangelists such as James Inglis, James Hall Brookes and Dwight L. Moody, the programs of the Niagara Bible Conference, and the establishment of Bible institutes. With the dawn of the 20th century, C. I. Scofield introduced the Scofield Reference Bible, which crystallized dispensationalism in the United States.

Dispensationalism has become popular within American evangelicalism. In addition to the Plymouth Brethren, it is commonly found in nondenominational Bible churches, as well as among Baptist, Pentecostal, and Charismatic groups.[8] Protestant denominations that embrace covenant theology, such as the Reformed churches, tend to reject dispensationalism.

Don’t worry, I’ll be explain. And sorry, but I’m too lazy to remove the footnote numbers in that. 

Let me first explain that “Biblical theology” was an attempt to find a consistent theology throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. You might think that would be “God” or even “salvation,” but the first is the subject of theology (“Theo-logos,” words about God), the other is sterility (theology focused on issues of salvation). There is, from Genesis to Revelation, no consistent presentation of the nature of the God of Abraham, anymore than there is of the Christ (Christology, if you’re wondering). No surprise in the latter, because Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t show up until the Gospel of Matthew. There really isn’t any consistent thread in the Bible, except people telling stories about what they consider encounters with God. And that’s really not enough to make a theme, much less a Biblical theology,

But one of the more useful things that came out of BT (nobody calls it that, but I’m tired of typing), is covenants theology, mentioned in the quote.  God makes a covenant with Abraham (think “contract,” but ever so much more so. It’s actually a theological as well as a religious concept, so don’t sweat it beyond “contract.”), and that covenant continues through Moses (who leads Israel out of slavery in Egypt, and gives Israel the law); through Saul (the first king), and David, and Solomon (this isn’t a complete history of biblical Israel?; that’s not what the scriptures are about, either); to the Exile (which does not break the covenant; the prophets testify that it cannot be broken), to the restoration (off stage; entre act between the end of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels), to the arrival of the Messiah, and what that means (the gospels, and all those letters). Covenant theology impinges here, in the idea that the Messiah presents a new covenant) “testament;” get it? Don’t worry about the consistency of that; it’s a whole other course in biblical and church history, and theology. See what I’m sparing you? The covenant, in short, is an old idea that predates BT, but has served several purposes over the millennia.

As Wiki said, the “alternative” way of seeing the Biblical narrative (and what it means) is “dispensationalism, a 19th century piece of nonsense (cards on the table). Add a Tech Bro who named his surveillance (I call it) company after a corrupted device in LOTR, now thinks he can lecture on the End Times. Which Hal Lindsey was going to bring about with a book (Google it; I’m older than you), and brought about again in a series of bad novels about 30 years later (because the second millennium was supposed to usher in “The End”). And now Thiel.

The consistent thread is the arrogance/narcissism of people who think they are to be the witness to the End Times. Dispensationalism adds on a bunch of nonsense that includes The Tribulation (the reign of the Antichrist, the Rapture (where all the right people get to escape the Tribulation, and probably sit in heaven eating heavenly popcorn while watching the 1000 year horror show.) 

You begin to see what I think about it.

There are variations on this idiotic theme (post millennialism, amillenialism; and no, I still don’t remember the distinctions. And don’t care; the whole subject is crap, IMHTO. Nobody needs it.

So what Thiel has to say on it is of no interest to me. He can’t be any better informed than C.I. Scofield, who foisted this crap on us. Per that Guardian article, Thiel’s spiel is the usual stew of proof-texting and bullshit and “I am alive at the precise time to see these signs and understand them, thanks be to God (who put me in the right place at the right time).”

The problem with this is, Biblical prophecy is not a blueprint to the future. The prophets were not Nostradamus writing about “Napoloron” and “Hister” in some far future. It was Matthew who turned Isaiah’s promise that the future included the hope of eventual recovery from the exile (“a young woman will bear a child”) into the miraculous virgin birth to establish Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Before that, the prophets were understood as people telling the truth of God (“the word of the Lord “) for Israel. After that, among Christians, they became predictors of the future. We had only to wait for history to come about. Here, I’ll give you a taste of Thiel’s argument:

Thiel devotes a large section of his second lecture to a quote from the Book of Daniel that involves a prophecy about the end times, which he equates to modern advances in technology and globalization.

Let’s go on to ‘many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall be increased.’ It means science progressing, technology improving, globalization, people traveling around the world. Of course in some sense, I think these things … I’m not sure they’re completely inevitable, but there is some direction to it. Where there’s a linear progression of knowledge and something like globalization that happens. But of course, the details matter a lot. Knowledge increasing, science progressing, technology improving can be a very good thing. No disease, death, protect people from natural disasters. Then, of course, we can destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, bioweapons, etc. And similarly, globalization is … you have trade in goods and services. There’s certain ways to escape from tyrannical governments. And of course there is danger in the one-world state of the antichrist.

First, that’s prooftexting: plucking bits of scripture out of context and declaring they mean what you want them to mean.  You can argue that’s what Matthew was doing to establish the miraculous birth of Jesus, but his efforts were, and long have been, reviewed and reflected wby a community that found them validated. And rejected by other communities that did not. I’m not arguing for the absolute truth of Matthew’s gospel. I’m saying Thiel fits easily in a line of cranks.

I remember in the’70’s when Nostradamus was all the rage, and his writings were evidence that was then a chaotic time was actually explainable if you just interpreted Nostradamus in light of current events. It’s funny how the present always happens to be the key that finally turns the lock to open the secrets and reveal them. Secrets that always have to do with the European world because the interpreters are… well, you get the idea. 

There have been predictions of the End Times going back to Paul. There was always a school of thought that Messiah would usher in the time of Isaiah’s holy mountain. John of Patmos linked it to the return of the New Jerusalem, but saw that coming only after trials and tribulations. It would, however, wash that away, and bring a time when mourning and crying would be no more. I’ve used that passage at a lot of graveside services. As I grow older, I begin to think of that entire hopeful conclusion in metaphorical terms of human existence. Life is struggle (who can deny it?) and conflict if only between your ideals and reality, and sometimes hope is merely dogged persistence. But if you win your way to the end of the struggles, you can see that death and crying are no more. For you, I mean. You can see that, like the third brother in the Deathly Hallows story, a time when you embrace Death like an old friend. “Death, be not proud….”

It is our pride that makes us think we can know the future, predict the future, protect ourselves from the disaster of the future. It is pride that we think God means a dreadful future for everyone except those of us wise enough to find the key (finally!) and turn the lock and escape the calamity that’s to come (that’s the Rapture, when the good people get to go straight to heaven, no death needed, to, I guess, watch the 1000 years of tribulation, or Reign of the Antichrist, which has to happen because human beings haven’t made things hard enough for themselves throughout history? Because some of us still have to earn Isaiah’s holy mountain? Because the New Jerusalem has to rest on the bones and the dust of a thousand years of God ordained misery and horror? And what did those generations do to deserve that?)

The whole thing very quickly stops making sense.

The prophets told Israel that the Exile was a consequence of their actions. But it wasn’t revenge God sought; it was reconciliation. The holy mountain was the result of Israel finally doing what God required: do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God. The covenant, in a nutshell. And the blessings that would flow from life lived on those terms would draw the peoples of the earth to learn from it. No force, no head bashing, no thousand years of torment to get the point across. No waiting for God to finally teach those people the lesson they desperately needed to learn. Because we all need to learn it. 

Interpreting predictions is putting yourself outside history. Nice work, if you can get it. But it’s an illusion; it’s a mirror of self-importance. What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God? You can’t do that by presuming you can see history from 3000 feet up. You can only do that by living in the quotidian days, among the people who Matthew’s parable told you is where you would find, and serve, God.

Which is what Peter Thiel professes to think is important, since he seems to think interpreting scripture is the most important thing he can do.