Makes sense
I saw a movie several years ago (name below to avoid spoilers) that was “based on a true story” and involved two people stranded in a dangerous situation with no way to communicate with anyone. I watched this whole movie, invested in the characters and the story, and then at the end they died, bodies never recovered. I was so annoyed. I get that biopics take a lot of liberties, but how tf could they say anything but the first ten minutes were in any way “based on a true story”?
Tap for spoiler
I think it was Open Water
Never discovered*
*Within the window of time for the movie
The new testament was written like a hundred years after Jesus died. Its entirely bullshit.
It’s an oral history whose earliest written accounts are dates between 60-150 years after the events in questions.
No more “bullshit” than any number of other 2000 year old transcribed histories.
It’s as bullshit as all the other oral histories that claim magic things
Yes the other stories are also 100% bullshit
No shortage of contemporary accounts.
Contemporary Roman records are less bullshit than Jesus walking on water in the New Testament because the writer cared whether or not it was true.
There was no such thing as academic tenure in those times and every historian depended on having a patron, usually a wealthy Senator. They probably cared more about keeping their patron happy than whether what they wrote was true or not.
I mean were you there? How do you know the intentions of the people writing things down back then?
Less bullshit, not perfectly credible. Records on taxes and grain production are much more plausible than magic powers.
LOL. Yeah the Romans were known for never being corrupt and they would never ever be skimming some tax revenue! Therefore those tax numbers were 100% accurate all of the time.
And Julius Caesar defeated one zillion Gauls at the Battle of Alesia. He would never exaggerate, because people cared a lot about whether the things they were writing were true.
I think I’ll go on thinking that primary sources are all inherently flawed. The Viking sagas talk about their colony in Vinland along with fighting sea serpents. They’re mostly bullshit, but it’s the only written record of Vinland which is supported by archaeological evidence. Do you discard everything in the sagas because there’s some mythological stuff in them? Do you inherently trust Roman records about taxes because they they’re dry and boring?
Or maybe historians are correct to consider the context of any work written (and that includes religious texts) alongside archaeological evidence? Also consider that for most of history most people couldn’t read or write. There’s always oral history that’s written down centuries later. Many things were never written down, and many things that were written down were destroyed. We have a limited amount of information from historical texts and given how uncommon literacy was in past, it’s usually written by either a wealthy person, someone employed by a wealthy person, or a priest. It’s always going to be an incomplete picture, and it all has a lot of bullshit in it.
Less bullshit, not perfectly credible
Therefore those tax numbers were 100% accurate all of the time.
I’m not sure we’re on the same page here
Contemporary Roman records are less bullshit
Didn’t Pliny the Elder include the Basilisk, the Manticore, and the Phoenix in his Natural History?
Meanwhile, Seneca described the feats of Hercules, the sorcery of Medea, and the plung into the underworld by Oedipus.
Ah OK I misunderstood and thought you meant anything written down at that time.
How often people do get plunged into the underworld out there? That’s Hercules, Oedipus, Heracles (Hercules’s nonunion Roman equivalent), persephone (rhymes with shone), Orpheus, who else? That’s like all the ancient geeks I know
*ancient nerds
But it was collected and disseminated by a bunch of dudes in the 300s
Nicae canonized the subset of Gospels they considered legitimate and excised the Gospels they considered heretical.
But the earliest surviving written gospel is dated to AD 125, with speculation (based on adjacent writings) dating new testament documents back to AD 60.
I appreciate that link. I also like and recognize that you accept that “early Christians” is a misnomer and they were actually a sect of Judaism. They called themselves Jews as well.
you accept that “early Christians” is a misnomer and they were actually a sect of Judaism
I don’t think this internally contradictory. No more than asserting that “early Mormons” were a sect of Christianity, and therefore not real Mormons somehow.
They were Jewish until they called themselves something different. We know they called themselves Jews until at least the trashing of the temple, so around 70 ad or so. After that, I think the historians say they start to change their names. Not sure if it was always Christians as the name they chose. It’s interesting, I’ll start looking it up.
No, they’re not real mormons now because they’re dead. It’s been like 200 years
I thought the Council of Nicaea was about addressing Arianism rather than settling the New Testament canon?
The Council of Nicaea addressed many things, including Christians making themselves eunuchs (as Jesus said to), which was very popular at the time.
Ah, you’re right. I had to confused with the 382 Synod of Rome.
deleted by creator
new testament is obviously bullshit
the old testament has some really great stories but it’s unfortunate the Jews rewrote all the stories to fit their narrative
still not a bad book
7/10
The first few books of the old testament are just bad fanfiction based off the Epic of Gilgamesh
The book of Job is about Adonaiyahwehjehovahbob bragging about torturing an innocent man.
And I’m sure a lot of the other old testament books (both protestant and catholic) are just as problematic.
Mine is when the Israelites slaughtered entire cities and then they made kids sing about it at Bible Camp.
They still do it to this day
… and so does Islam and Christianity, it’s crazy!
what do they all share in common? It’s a pickle
(hint: it’s tax free)
(hint: it’s tax free)
Child support?
Wait no I changed mine it’s when they put Jesus in a hole, then put a giant wheel of cheese in front of the hole.
The reason Jesus ain’t come back is he needs our help to eat all that cheese and get out of the hole
[now that I think about it I might be able to start a cult around cheese. I told my wife no more cults, but I didn’t promise. Plus, cheese. Maybe she wants to join this one]
Can I be your wife? I’d join a cheese cult.
Hmmm suspicious username. Are you sure you’re not a pastafarian spy ?
Hey now don’t oversimplify it!
We all know about Joseph Smith and the stones in a hat.
Wait, what?
Dum dum dum dum duuum
In case you are unaware of the story of the origins of the Mormon faith that Mormons actually believe, go look up the South Park episode titled All About Mormons. It gives a pretty brief overview of everything, including the stones in the hat.
It’s quite a funny episode, tbh.
I’ll never forget watching that episode with my (non-mormon) friend, his (fresh-convert) brother, and said brother’s (raised mormon) girlfriend. After the episode ended we naturally wanted their opinions on it, and girl straight up said -and this is verbatim- “It was pretty close. Joseph Smith didn’t read from under a hat, it was more of a shawl, but otherwise it was good”
Speechless.
Smrt smrt smrt smrt smrrrrrt
The origin of the Mormon religion is practically a parody of itself. It’s also a sterling example of why education is so important in developing people’s critical thinking skills so they aren’t all credulous morons.
There’s this great video of the previous head mormon sticking his head in Joe Smith’s hat.
My favorite part is how well it can be used to light a fireplace. Just tear out some pages, put some wood over it and light it. Secundair use is rolling paper when you’ve run out.
It does not work well as toilet paper. But in a a pinch give it a try. Consider your ass warned, though.
No no no, cleaning your ass is what holy water is for. At the entrance of every church they have a bidet for that.
I smoked a bible joint once, it’s still a lot of paper hahs
I’m still annoyed that it has never been printed in two-ply
At hotels, rip out a random page in the middle. If anyone ever reads it they’ll be super annoyed.
Or draw a pentagram on the first page and the text heil Satan
My father once threw my mother’s bible to the fireplace and because it was closed it didn’t burn, my mother took that as a holy sign, I’ve never had the heart to explain her why it didn’t burn.
Physics explanations usually aren’t welcome anyway.
Religion is such a mindfuck. And life-fuck.
And society-fuck.
My favourite thing about the Bible is that every time it’s been translated the people doing the translations include they’re own nonsense.
you mean poopiecoin isn’t cannon??
And the Lord sayeth, “Vote for Trump, for the Haitians are eating dogs”. Amen.
My favorite thing about the Bible is that the gospels were written by followers of the disciples, who themselves didn’t know how to read or write, in Aramaic, then translated to Greek, then to Latin, then censored by the council of Nicea, then finally translated into English with the Geneva, then quickly edited by the commission of King James, because the J-Sauce was very socialist and anti-government.
And the atheists who want to quote terrible things mentioned in the bible are pulling from the Old Testament, specifically a book of law written by the King Joshua, 800 years before Jesus, and proclaim that people proclaim it to be the word of God.
So, ok: we have so many translations, literally a mass obliteration of Cathars, as well as other Inquisitions… now, you wanna tell me you know jack shit about the bible and tell me things didn’t happen?
Ok. Cool, bro.
What is your preferred translation of the Bible? Are there any other books you’d recommend on this topic?
Biblegateway.com is an AWESOME tool. I don’t have a preference towards any translation. Sometimes, I will dig down to the Vulgate or Greek. I sure as shit have to admit I can’t read Aramaic.
But you can put in the verse and flip between translations on the fly and look for commonalities.
That’s how I eventually discovered the Barabbas was Jesus, and that required me to get down to the Vulgate.
It’s all horseshit.
Thank you for attending my lecture.
Succinct. Informative. Accurate. No notes.
So you are MAGA?
Maybe your knowledge of the topic is just horseshit.
Bro I didn’t even read your comment because it was discussing the legitimacy of different interpretations of thousand year old fanfics. It’s meaningless. The book makes some good points about being nice to each other, but it’s not real. It’s literal hallucinations and grifts by people over hundreds of years.
I don’t need to get a PhD on theology to determine that it’s all fucking lies.
And you think this makes me MAGA…? Fuck that’s sad. What a worthless worldview you have.
Funny he mentions MAGA in the context of christ, as they tend to be Christian nationalists.
Who aren’t Christian, btw. I am criticizing logic through facetious statements.
Jokes are funnier when they don’t have to be explained. But hey, breathe through the mouth: it is a valid channel.
Jokes are funnier when they don’t have to be explained
Have you thought that nothing you’ve said is funny?
Jokes are funnier when they don’t have to be explained.
Not commenting on anything for the chain, just this thing. Agree, but personally that’s more on the teller than the listener.
However, I really enjoy explaining my jokes when people ask or people explaining their jokes. At that point it isn’t about laughing but about learning things I missed or alternative viewpoints.
Apologies, I’m going to do something that I think is kind of a jerk move and paste my standard argument for a very specific point. It’s a jerk move because I see that you wrote a genuine reply and I appreciate that. I don’t know enough about the specific points that you raised to discuss them directly, so I’m falling back on my broader thinking. To that end, I’m truly trying to contribute to the discussion (even though I’m pasting a repeated(-by-me) blurb; see my sibling post; I’m pretty into this topic). I respect your views even if we disagree, so long as you don’t try to impose them on others, which I’m not saying you do / did.
Jesus is an ahistorical figure who was originally crucified in the firmament above the earth. Notice no mention of an earthly ministry in the Pauline epistles; Paul is arguing for salvation from a heavenly figure. In his letters, Jesus is still to be revealed, rather than returning. Only decades later did the stories about a human man get written.
The Didache was most likely part of the letter written by the “pillars in Jerusalem” (James the Just, Peter, and John) after their meeting with Paul. This was the meeting to discuss the matter of preaching to gentiles and whether circumcision ought to be required for christian converts. It contains many of the tenets later ascribed to Jesus, but doesn’t associate him with teaching them.
The reason the earthly story was embraced by the church was to stop people like Paul from having visions of Christ that the church couldn’t control. By pointing to a real guy on earth, they could control the message. Otherwise, any yokel on the street could teach that Jesus revealed new teachings and the church risked being undermined.
Marcion was probably the first to create a collection of writings associated with christianity: he collected some of Paul’s letters and had his own gospel. It was thought that he had a shortened version of Luke (as testified by Eusebius and Tertullian). Marcion, however, claimed that his gospel had been “judaized”; this suggests that his shorter version was the original gospel before others modified it.
Acts was written as a direct response to Marcion’s scripture. It was written to harmonize Paul’s high-jacking of the religion by making he and Peter appear to be in alignment when actually he was at odds with the leaders in Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem pillars (James, Peter, John), were strict adherents of Judaism, whereas Paul taught that Jesus made the Law / Torah unnecessary. They were almost certainly Essenes, one of the three flavors of Judaism at the time (the other two were the Pharisees and Sadducees mentioned in the new testament). John the Baptist was clearly also an Essene. He’s said to wear camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and honey. His practice of baptism also aligns with daily ritual water immersion believed to be a core practice of the Essenes.
This is a very long way of saying that Jesus first appeared in visions and spoke to the early leaders without walking on earth. It’s a fringe belief about which I was quite skeptical, but damn if the evidence doesn’t line up. See Robert Price, Earl Doherty, and Elbe Spurling for more info. Elbe’s online book is free and contains a huge amount of historical information about the region at the.
You are claiming Jesus is ahistorical, using the term to basically mean fictional. Those aren’t the same.
Jesus was crucified here on Earth, and his crime was pissing off Pontius Pilate. He would help people without going through the proper channels.
The religious leaders were getting kick backs from the Roman Empire, as they were taxing the people for religious reassurance. Jesus was doing it for free.
His disciples didn’t understand what he was doing, because Simon wanted a cult. The other Simon and Judas were picking up what he was throwing down.
He then told Judas to identify him to lead by example and show the harsh brutality of their governance.
And Jesus didn’t “live without sin”. He stole a donkey just to ride it into town, just for a performance act which he was tried for, because he was claiming himself King of the Jews.
I don’t see him as being fictional. Ahistorical I can concede, as he wasn’t literally born during Yule. And that is another fun topic I can delve into.
However, he reminds me of Abbie Hoffman.
Anyhow, while his records are muffed, he was a living human who said a lot of things you can catch in the Vulgate, which includes proof that the Jews didn’t free a murderer and condemn Jesus. Barabbas means son of God, while Christos is King of the Jews.
In the Vulgate, it makes it clear. Jesus went before two judges. “Are you the son of God?” and “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“If you say so.” The vulgate also reveals that Barrabas had a first name: Jesus.
So to appeal to the Jewish populace, as they could see that their tyranny was causing insurrection, certainly amplified by Jesus, they gave a tricky deal:
We will free a prisoner. This man who claims he is your messiah! Or this man who claims he is the son of God.
“Free the Son of God.”
Well, you said it. Don’t blame us. It is your fault.
And that’s why Jesus was put on display with the sign that says, “Here lies the King of the Jews.”
Now, I realize you are saying his existence is fictional. I don’t care. I love the story. Some people really get into Warhammer lore. And the same with Star Wars: just because it got retconned all to shit doesn’t mean Episode 4 didn’t kick ass.
Damn, I need to attend your lecture. You know so much that I don’t.
Ask away, my man. Look at the rest of the thread because some of us are having some deep dives into the topic.
In regards to the 12 year old boy, the people were complaining about hunger. Jesus gave a sermon saying we should share food.
The 12 year old offered 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, which was his paycheck, to a disciple. The disciple asked Jesus, “Wtf am I supposed to do with this?”
“Disperse it.”
5000 men, meaning 5000 families as children and women were being counted, ran to their pantries, inspired by the boy, to grab what they could find. Shit that was just sitting on the shelves that they didn’t have the rest of the ingredients to actually use it.
It is a story of an impromptu potluck. The magic was only the words of Jesus and the generosity of that 12 year old boy.
And everyone was fucking fed. That’s properly administrated socialism. Love your neighbor. Government doesn’t even need to be involved.
Very interesting, thankyou
*weren’t counted. 5000 families held an impromptu potluck.
What do you think about the resurrection of Lazarus?
What do you think about CPR?
I’d think survival would be inconsistent with the amount of time Lazarus was “dead”/needed cpr.
I lean more towards Lazarus being misdiagnosed as dead and Jesus giving Lazarus the ol’ sternum tap to wake him up.
I can agree with that.
Look, I am saying that I agree with what Jesus taught, no question. But I don’t think he was a magic zombie man.
And I do believe in God/Godhead, and I am not a hard physicalist.
The miracle of Jesus is mostly that he helped people without asking for money, which the pharisees and sadducees were doing by order of the Roman empire, while additionally refusing to assist gentiles.
And the J-Sauce was like, “fuck this stupid shit. And fuck the Romans and their self-perceived authority to deny the basic commandment: Love thy neighbor.”
Jesus was punk as fuck. He refused to stand down, the Romans tried to twist the narrative so that his own supporters would be blamed, and made an example of.
But that holy spirit should die. Hence, fuck ICE. I will happily die to defend my neighbor, without using any force. Just an example.
But if you strike me first, well, I will take action to stop you from doing it again. Pacifism is not submission.
Hold up, how do I get ahold of scriptures that support this interpretation of the story?
So Christians don’t know jack shit either since every historical fact is lost in translation or just corrupted and misconstrued for a personal agenda.
The “Christians” who didn’t study the Bible don’t follow the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus was punk rock and worthy of study. Buddhism fell in the same hole.
You are buying into and, sure, trying your best to reject the propaganda. But you are buying into the “official story” just the same as the “Christians” you disdain.
Study the Bible, and then when some evangelical asshole wants to tell them that you will burn in eternity in Hell, you can correct them: Hell is simply destruction, literally what atheists consider death to be.
But Jesus was way cool, and not as magical as the GOVERNMENTS that killed him for insurrection want us to believe.
So how can one study the true Bible where to find a faithful translation
Study it and cross reference the translations, and you will find the point being made.
I know, it takes time, and this thread makes me want to just write a book that summarizes the Bible, like it is Harry Potter, but of course citing sources.
As David Cross said, “They didn’t have science back then so everyone was even stupider…” or something approximating it.
“This happend to me the other day” and then someone wrote it down.
Can you cite these passages? Because from my memory, when he’s praying alone, the content of his prayer isn’t recorded and that barely happens at all. There are other things that show that the gospels aren’t historical but please stick to the facts
Disclaimer: I’m an agnostic. Also, the Evangelists are supposed to write as if God himself was in control of their writing, so, effectively, it would be God himself writing those words.
Also notable:
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised
- Brannigan 3:5
Death by snoo snoo!
Official explanation: The Holy Spirit narrated to the author. This can be quite removed, some books were written many years after the event, some were passed down. Then the Council of Nicea went through all of these tales and said “This is real, we can tell, were putting this in the Bible.”
They also resolved a pressing issue for the new church. “Stop cutting off your balls, this is a metaphor, not literal instructions. Even though He said that they were instructions, that was also a metaphor.”
You probably think I’m joking… but sadly, no.
“Oh, just one more thing… you can’t get married. No, He didn’t say that, but we’re inspired by the Magic Bird, so mote it be.”
Didn’t that one come later because certain members of the clergy were having kids and functionally turning their positions into hereditary fiefdoms?
This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.
This is what i was referring to, but it may have been a later council? It’s canon from what I’ve read, but not specifically about marriage, but “keeping a woman”.
IiRC it was more so that the Church got actual fiefdoms and wanted control so that potential priestly families wouldn’t just distance themselves into secular noble houses, taking lands with them.
Fiefdoms and related duties originated from kings, so the church wanted similar parallel rights over their vassal priests.
Well, he didn’t say you can’t rape little boys…
My fucking sides. What is this from?
A Mel Brooks comedy from 1981. It has different dark takes on notable events in history, like our clumsy guy Moses here.
https://nunzioweb.com/video/history-part1/
This bit happens at 08:10.
there’s a whole section of the library called fiction
it’s going to blow your mind
Some of the other writings that didn’t make the cut for the canonical bible are wild.
I feel cheated that they cut the version of the nativity where Jesus was born in a cave and fought a literal dragon, after which the dragons and some lions bowed down to him (apocryphal Gospel of James).
That would have been a much better scene under the Xmas tree.
Bet a non canonical bible with only cut content is a way better book.
The Bible: Extended Cut
I’m holding out for the Directors cut with commentary
now with multiple endings
Apocalyptic foretelling was apparently a pretty widespread hobby in the time when the ‘Revelation’ was composed. However, the canonical one is a political pamphlet masqueraded as such a story, with both 666 and its Latin variation 616 referring to Nero.
Choose Your Own Adventure Bible
thats called the bible with apocrypha, and youre right its way better
edit: sry misread, dont know if you can get the apocrypha without the main bible. But the cut content is great!
Lower-case apocrypha are extra-canonical religious writings, which cover a wide range of ancient texts in Christianity.
“The Apocrypha” is applied to a specific set of books that are accepted in various configurations by the Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern churches but are rejected from the Biblical canon by many Protestant denominations. Those are the ones you can find between the Old and New Testaments in some Bibles.
It’s not at all confusing.
thanks for elaboraring! always nice to get real context, im just yapping from memory :P
The book of Enoch often features in nutty ancient aliens content. Extra terrestrial beings and hand held devices and so on.
It’s important context for the canonical bible. Imagine you find a bunch of scrolls in urns in a cave and it’s basically an anthology of short stories from the star wars realm. You cut out the ones that just seem too crazy and the ones that contradict others, and then call the rest your special nutty history.
“This can be quite removed”
What? I’m not sober so it’s very possible I’m just bring stupid and not understanding the words, they just make no sense to me at the moment and I can’t figure out what you were trying to write (in the case of me not being dumb right now).
“Quite removed” in terms of time.
It means that the church failed to destroy records about how the stuff they peddle wasn’t written anywhere near the events they supposedly describe. You’re supposed to spend years studying the book upon threat of physical violence or death until you reach a point where you’re too invested in the mythos to bother questioning it. You’re supposed to NOT study all the figures that we have written records of that predate the jesus myth:
To be fair, the “You can’t get married” issue happened seven hundred years later under Gregory the Seventh, and at the time, the other patriarchs who remained following the rise of Islam thought the Archbishop of Rome, the Pope, was nuts too. Which is why Coptic and Greek Orthodox priests can marry, along with Protestant priests. All arguing “Christ never said you needed to absolutely forgoe sex, that was Paul and Peter.”
“This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”
This is what I was referring to, from the First Council of Nicaea.
I read this in the voice of Bill Wurtz, jingles included.
Someone could make a religion out of this.
The Council of Nicaea did not decide the books of the canon, it decided on whether Jesus was equal to God or not…
It decided many things other than “Jesus was equal to God or not.”
You should read about it!
The celibate came in the middle ages and wasnt a law before the begin of the 20th century
The celibate came
I guess they’re no longer celibate then…
Wait what? Really? I mean I figured. Just…it was basically like that?
Official explanation: The Holy Spirit narrated to the author.
You mean the four authors who all wrote the same story but slightly different?
Holy spirit talking to people must have been common back then. Strange how it just stopped.
Oh, it hasn’t stopped, friend.
Go to any Assembly of God church on Sunday; they are inspired my the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues! Holy Spirit talks to all who will listen.
The Bible teaches that when you accept Christ, the Magic Bird infuses you with superior wisdom and intellect. This is why you can be sure that your thoughts are legitimate and righteous.
This is ‘explained’ by Julian Jayne’s idea of the Bicameral Mind.
So, everyone had, until 3000 years ago, schizophrenia induced by gods and were comanded by gods? That’s some wild mental gymnastic he did…
It didn’t stop, we just understand it as psychosis these days.
Flagging for best-of-lemmy
My favorite bit of Christian lore is the time that predestination became a widespread belief. People cursed god and the church and sinned 30x harder, recognizing that if they did it, they were always meant to. In the absence of choice, people found hedonism not just agreeable but compulsory. Then the church solved that issue by telling people that they could actually get into heaven by paying. People got so pissed off that a sect splintered off, and I think that how we got Protestants.
Someone please tell me how many different events I erroneously mixed together.
Luther and Calvin started off with Niecea and Trinity are complete BS mistranslations of original greek, and you can be your own priest = “conscience interpreting Jesus words as meaningful”. It ended up with Trinity is best, and only Calvin was allowed to be his own priest, and you should be killed for having believed the first version. I don’t know about paying for sin, but how else can a pastor get a G6?
Paying for sin was called indulgences. At first, it was to quell other issues and make money. But then it just turned into a way to make money. Vast piles of money. Personal money, as you alluded.
people found hedonism not just agreeable but compulsory.
.,.
People got so pissed off that a sect splintered off, and I think that how we got Protestants.
I think something is missing or the Protestants would be Hedonists.
Then the church solved that issue by telling people that they could actually get into heaven by paying. People got so pissed off that a sect splintered off, and I think that how we got Protestants.
OP here is referring to the fact that the Catholic church was selling indulgences (basically get out of purgatory free cards), and that is what led Martin Luther to publish the Ninety-five Theses, calling them out on it. This is generally considered to be the starting point for the Protestant Reformation.
They were pissed off with the hedonism and made catholicism but with fun being illegal and salvation through wageslavery
pissed off with the hedonism
That part actually explains a bunch of things about the ‘Protestant ethic’.
Someone please tell me how many different events I erroneously mixed together.
I can for money… Otherwise, enjoy the orgy!
eh, I’m good for money tonight. come back when you wanna bj
FYI, the council of Nicea had nothing to do with biblical canon. That’s a common misconception.
Feel free to correct me with any source! I am interested.
(it says canon for some reason)
If you read through the list of canons you linked, none of them mentions a list of books that are to be considered part of the bible. The “canons” listed are basically just rules about different things in the church and were put in place to address splits that were forming as the church grew. The books of the bible were not in any way decided at Nicaea.
If you would like to read more and/or correct me on anything, I’m pulling from https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I hate it when I go and do something and then tell someone about it and they are like “no one else was there so it didn’t happen”.
I’m not saying Jesus is real or anything but like, he coulda just don’t stuff and went back to his boyfriends and been like “hey wild shit I prayed and good was like what up”
But Jesus was arrested and crucified before he could hang out with his homies, therein lies the rub.
