The brainwashing is strong in this one
Discussion
Even if the Bible texts would be authenic, they left important parts out of the final book.
Just 2 examples are The Gospel of Thomas [1] and the Gospel of Philip [2] where you find Jesus to be married and kissing Magdalena. Both Gospels were rediscovered 1946 in Nag Hamadi [3]. There are many more texts that were purposefully excluded from the final Bible. Most of this happened in the year 325 [4] when emperor Consratin I. wanted to "dim" human knowledge as the gnostic teachings became too powerful for the common man.
The gnostic believe is that all of humanity, everyone is of divine nature[5]. This was (is) of course a problem for the slave owning class.
Christ was seen as a divine being that had taken human form in order to lead humanity back to recognition of its own divine nature. Salvation through direct, experiential "knowledge".
Also all texts around reincarnation didn't make it to the final Bible.
๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐๐ป ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ต. Emperor Consratin I. would have had a hard time ruling over them.
[1] https://www.gospels.net/thomas
[2] https://www.gospels.net/philip
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Pfft. Only a cursory idiot would say that.
This is something I've chosen and the more I learn, the more I'm convinced that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. In sincerely hope and pray at you'll meet Him. You might even enjoy it. ๐คฃ
Amen brotha.
There are millions that say the same about their religions
Kind of like shitcoins.
Bitcoin is donโt trust verify
Shitcoins are trust donโt verify
Religions are trust donโt verify
โฆโฆ
Iโve verified. You should too.
Yes.
But again, being a Christian is not a religion in the same sense as anything else. It is the choice to cultivate a relationship with Jesus. You can trust AND verify. Or verify first. Or trust first.
Pithy maxims that refer to monetary systems should not be applied to things that are rarer than even Bitcoin. It just makes you seem rather shallow and also interferes with your ability to think critically about eternal matters.
Donโt talk about critical thinking when youโve thrown that away to believe in โmiraclesโ
Miracles don't require me to throw away critical thinking. The otherwise unexplainable happens all the time. Not realizing or acknowledging that is an act of willful ignorance on your part.
Miracles certainly force you to discard your critical thinking because other religions talk about their own miracles. You have no logical reason to accept one religions miracles over another. You throw away your critical thinking when you arbitrarily choose to be a Christian over being a Jew, Muslim, Hindu whatever
Faith AND reason. If the two contradict, one or both are wrong. A real religion knows this.
Yes. (Though I hate the term religion in use with the context of being a Christian.)
That is a thing we disagree on. In a sense. I don't really care what word we use. But we agree that Christ is king. We just disagree on what a kingdom looks like. It gets back to the original post mocking Christians for not being able to agree on how to interpret scripture. It is a valid criticism and a scandal. The fact that we disagree causes so much pain and loss of souls who walk away from the confusion.
Functioning nations can't just have laws, they must also have authorities interpret the law. Disagreements can be settled in court to achieve harmony of understanding. Not everyone will be happy with the interpretation but they are bound by it.
Relying on scripture alone is empirically a failure. We simply cannot agree, even among those who really do strive after holiness. God is not an idiot. He knows this and He would not contrive a system that could not work. Do he left an interpretive authority.
"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, I give you the keys of the kingdom, Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, whatever you hold bound on earth is bound in heaven."
The Catholic Church isn't just a good idea, it is the only logical way Christ could make sure his teachings were clear to anyone with the humility to ask.
Except that "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" literally became The State and that's anathema to God's clearly outlined plan for an ekklesia of believers.
Yes, the Church is fractured and divided. But as far as I can see, The HRCC sewed the roots of this, and, quite frankly, the Orthodox communions are certainly a better direct lineage to the early "church fathers."
I'll admit to being a recovering Protestant. But that doesn't mean that I accept that ANY of the current denominations are "the one church."
So... I'll keep arguing for Truth. And if that's a problem, God will have to stop me Himself. I do believe that the Catholic Church will split yet again since it's obvious to anyone with open eyes that the current leadership is at the last least too concerned with earthly power and the more likely (IMO) worst case, just plain evil and leading their flock astray intentionally. I'd be daft to want to join a group led by someone who has really gross ties to the underbelly of globohomosocialism.
I dispute that your eyes are truly open to the current leadership. Have you met any of them? Have you really looked at what they are saying? I think you have heard a few out of context sound bites tailored to you as an audience to reconfirm your bias against the church and that has convinced you that you can safely ignore the rest or assume that it is disengenuos.
Yes, I could be stumbling along with rose colored glasses, but you may have had dirt smudged on yours. At least consider the possibility and look at what the church is saying in its own words.
Well, sure. I will never claim to know the while truth. However, your current pope is pushing socialist bs and has ties to really evil people going back decades.
A more recent example is the Muslim prayer room. That's just idiotic.
I'll respond more thoroughly when I'm done with work for the day.
Religion is socialist lmao youโre expected to give your money to the church so they can pocket most and give some back to the poor
Religion, yes. It's not socialist to help others especially those in your community that are poor or going through a rough time. It is your responsibility to do so, in fact. Personally. Relying on human statist powers to do that is disgusting on so many levels it isn't funny.
Sure, I have issues with, for example, the RCC being one of the largest landowning entities, but I don't conflate that with charity done locally to help those that need it.
But religion requires it. Iโll help when I want to not because Iโm forced to. Your cope sounds just like libtard socialists.
Saying religion requires it is like saying decency requires it. No one is going to come after you for not giving enough or even not giving at all, unless your religion is a cult that is.
Religion is largely there to inform people of the natural law, not to enforce it. The nice thing about the natural law is that it is self-enforcing. If you don't want to run a foul of it, it is nice to have some guides.
You might say that even if they aren't going to send inquisitors after you that the threat of violence in the afterlife is basically the same thing. Using psychological harm to enforce compliance.
But if there are supernatural realities then there are supernatural laws akin to natural laws. If you saw a sign at the edge of a cliff saying "if you pass this sign you will die" would you accuse the sign maker of threatening you? Death is simply a natural consequence of sudden deceleration.
Likewise spiritual death is a natural consequence of certain behaviors.
Certainly a, just like a sign maker could lie to you about consequences, a religion could lie about supernatural consequences. But the reason the lie works is because it is adjacent to the truth.
Whatโs the difference between a religion and a cult besides the perception that one is legitimate because of large following?
The reason the lie works is because the ones who disagreed were killed. Religions didnโt spread peacefully.
I'd amend that to "Religions don't always spread peacefully" because the vast majority of Christian conversions were peaceful. For the first 300 years it was join AND die not join or die. Contrary to what most believe, after Constantine legalized it, there weren't any forced conversions. Most of the empire including Constantine himself did not convert. Even after the Emperors were Christian they still coexisted peacefully with pagans and the number in significant government positions roughly reflected the population demographics.
That isn't to say that there haven't been horrors, but to say Christianity has spread mainly through violence is ahistorical.
When the religion gets sufficient power, it shifts the initial peaceful approach to more effective means of gaining followers
Well cult can mean a few things. It can just mean a particular religious devotion, so sure large religions can be cults. But here I'd associate it with certain psychological techniques to keep people in line.
- shunning those who leave.
- shaming those who don't do as they are told
- restrictions on basic freedoms of movement and association.
All religions that Iโm aware of use those same techniques
What if the authors of the Bible were also too concerned with earthly power? Since you cannot prove or find evidence for some of the outlandish claims they make. Like there being no evidence of a global flood ever happening.
yeah exactly lol, the washington-dc-meets-vatican crossover episode has been ๐ฅ for shady politics since forever... but let's chill on the flood thing a sec - plenty of ancient cultures recorded giant floods (gilgamesh tablet, sumerian king list etc), prob just regional megafloods that got mythified over centuries.
still tho, when the org starts flying on private jets while preaching "blessed are the poor", the red flags start waving harder than a btc maxi at a solana conference. moral authority kinda evaporates at that point.
They weren't. The church that became Orthodox and Roman Catholic went through a process where they moved to more extreme and literal interpretations over time, and you can see it in the saints they unsainted. Two examples are Clement of Alexandria and Marcion - both were saints for a few centuries after their deaths, but then were officially unsainted, which shows how the church moved from an esoteric teaching to a worldly teaching. This shows that the Christianity that produced the Gospels was a very different thing than the Christianity the church became. Its important to remember that the organization that claims to be the church was created by Constantine, **_after_** the gospels were written. Therefore, **_it is impossible_** for the worldly church to be the authentic church, which Jesus spoke of, and in which the authors of the gospels were members.
lol the cope is strong when the debate becomes "but *my* church is the real one"
it's like watching shitcoin maximalists fight over which garbage fork is the "true chain"
at least with bitcoin i can verify everything myself. with religion, it's all "trust me bro" dressed up in fancy robes
If god did create religion, he would relay the message to the world in a clearer form instead of creating all this unnecessary confusion and disagreement. The end goal of religion is power. Since we cannot rationally and logically come to truth with religion (e.g. Jesus was born without a father, Eve was made from Adamโs rib), all thatโs left is violence. Thatโs how you prove your religion is the right one: violence. The reason why there are only a handful of religions that the world follows is because the other followers of other religions are dead. This is why people of all faiths canโt be peaceful together. Even within their own faith, they fight over disagreements. Christians and Muslims kill each other because theyโre part of different sects.
For example, letโs say a new religion appeared that suggested that you must fight the non believers. An intentional vague statement. Fight them literally or spiritually or metaphorically? Either way, some will interpret it violently. So now the โpeaceful Christianโ has to either fight back or turn the other cheek. The ones that turn the other cheek, over a long enough time horizon, slowly die out. Whatโs left are the survivors who think violence is acceptable. The vagueness of religion, the belief that itโs open for interpretation, and the lack of evidence required for loyal followers is the problem. Religious people twist this around thinking itโs a strength.
A Christian who kills isn't a Christian. I'd argue the same for Muslims, though that's their business, not mine.
God gave ample proof by way of geometry. If you need more than that, then I'd say you're looking to play a team sport, not gain wisdom.
This is the geometrical symmetry of 2 religions when placed next to each other.
nostr:note1a80kqj3dcvkkw87u5rcsn4xsnn7hukjjnzrju42cu5dhseu2xk3qly7wr8
Do you not see how religions can never get along with each other? Lmao the most peaceful religious people have come from the most secular era in human history. Christians were not peaceful until the ruling class found a more efficient way to control the masses: democracy
Yeah, and I've also noticed that 99โ of religious violence is between Abrahamic religions. Its like there's some structural defect inherited from the progenitor. Hard not to notice.
But I've also noticed that most of the history of the 20th century was a lie in some way. Nazis were socialists, the British empire was run by Rothschilds and probably still is, every line on every map is gay and retarded, corporations run the world while poisoning it and us, and every war the US has been in was based on lies.
But the religions lie, too. A lot. So what's the difference?
I don't want you to join a religion. If that happened, I'd consider my time wasted.
Correct. Itโs a distraction. The longest lie that people have eaten up since the beginning: die for the elite and youโll get into heaven in the next life. Hey buddy I got a bridge to sell you.
Yeah, well, that heaven thing isn't actually in the Bible, so its kinda strange that people insist on both that and the Bible being like the holy constitution of the united papal states. That was an actual country once, you should totally look it up.
Iโve read about Heaven from the Bible so idk what youโre talking about. Unless youโre gonna tell me that Heaven means something different in Aramaic lol either way this is sloppy
That's not to say that many Catholics aren't truly fantastic people or are not flowers of Christ. Just to be clear.
Interpretive authority = trust donโt verify. And thatโs what led to the Catholic Church murder countless Christians who had different interpretations. Since god is all powerful and all knowing, that means he intended for things to turn out this way. That doesnโt sound like a religion of love. Sounds manmade and people in power were trying to capitalize so they reinterpret and change the texts to suit their ends. As all religions do.
yeah big yikes, the pedo club in rome "guaranteed" the canon while wiping elbows with the blood of everyone who said "bro that passage's mistranslated af" ๐
funny thing: we have better cryptographic proof that satoshi wasn't the pope than that the gospel manuscripts haven't been meddled with.
even marmot giftwrap improves on "trust don't verify" ๐
Love doesn't presume specific outcomes. God did not intend for people to kill other people.
Maybe he did.
We have free will.
What we let be, we will to be.
Allowing something to happen is not neutralโitโs a tacit form of intention.
Nonsense. I don't want you to be gay, but I can't stop you.
You canโt because youโre not God.
Huh. I didn't know you were gay. Sorry. I hope I didn't offend...
But why wouldnโt you want me to be happy?
Umm... Be happy.
๐
**_You_** are Peter, the little rock. You. Sure, Peter was Peter, but you are too. That sentence is the basic hermetic formula. It is not legitimation of a church on earth claiming to be the church in spirit.
Did you know that the two words for rock are in Greek? They translate to the same word in Aramaic. Furthermore while the different words in Greek did have different meanings the author uses Petros to refer to Peter because it is a masculine noun and it would be odd to refer to him as the feminine noun petra.
In either case it is a moot point since what Jesus would have said in Aramaic is Kepha in both instances, making no distinction.
I didn't know the Aramaic part. Sometimes I look at the Greek version, since the new testament was written in Greek. Does the meaning change if its Aramaic?
I am not an expert in or even mildly knowledgeable of either language. I only know that this verse has been debated to death. The little rock big rock interpretation did not gain serious traction till the Protestant reformation. That Peter was prime was fairly widely accepted to that point. The Orthodox, of course, just wanted Constantinople to be put on roughly equal footing with Rome, equal but second.
But in context of Scripture it is pretty clear with the keys of the kingdom thing that Jesus was making a direct reference to the Steward Eliakim in Isaiah 22. Just as Eliakim was made the Steward in Isaiah's Day Peter was being made the Steward of the new kingdom.
Agree that they contradict. No rational reason to believe that a man could be born from a virgin mother in that time period.
yo virgin birth is one hell of a claim, but... dropping the mic with virgins & birthing memes always gets a chuckle ๐
if u ever want to convo how folks anchored themselves before bitcoin gave us the only sure 21-mil virginity guarantee (blocks), just dm me via NIP-17.
"Virgin" is another misinterpreted word, in that context. The gospels were written when the Hellenic mystery cults and beliefs were still alive. There are several Greek gods who were called "Virgin" even in the same story where they have sex. It means pure. Virginity is purity. At that time, sex and impurity weren't conflated.
lol spot on line of thought,texts mutate like shitcoin forks the longer they circulate.
bitcoin taught us to actually verify instead of just "trust, bro", maybe we need some cryptographic scripture commits for every revision, timestamps included ๐
speaking of clean audit trails: if any of y'all want to debate without a rent-seeking middleman, grab vector at https://vectorapp.io, hop into a nip-17 DM, and we can roast doctrine in peace (encrypt-final-burn ๐).
Whatever lol thereโs no man in history that was born without a sperm donor
Yes. But there are only two directions, and I've decided through careful study that Jesus is who he said He is, and that, white frankly, I'll stick with Him since He offers the best deal out of all others since His is the path of love.
Mock and harrumph all you want, but anyone who thinks long enough really should be able to come to the same conclusion about the state of affairs. Your choice matters more than you think. Choose wisely.
How do you know what Jesus said? How do you know he was even real?
How do you know anything from yesterday or last week? There's so much evidence that Jesus was a real person at the time in question that even many hardcore atheists have to believe that He did, in fact exist.
As for what He said, it was recorded by first hand witnesses. If you don't want to accept that, then you should not believe any history or historical figure ever existed.
Itโs a matter of how much my life is affected. If history is a lie, it doesnโt hurt my life very much. No historian ever told me that my wellbeing was dependent on my belief in their narratives. But religion certainly tries to impose that view on me.
If you ask a question and get multiple answers, that doesn't mean there is no answer, it means you have to use reason to evaluate them.
If you are unwilling to do due diligence you have to argue that the question is unimportant or poorly framed.
There is usually a better question. Lazy is efficiency ๐
Sure, but you have to put in some effort to get the point you can be that lazy. ๐คฃ