you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 213 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (54 children)

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.

A few centuries later, the Council of Nicea went through all of these texts and decided, "This is real, we can tell, we're putting this in the Bible. That... that other stuff is fake, yuck! Gross. Heresy."

They also resolved a pressing issue for the new church. "Priests, please stop cutting your balls off, that is a metaphor, not literal instruction. Even though He said that they were literal instructions, that was also a metaphor."

"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."

You probably think I'm joking.... but sadly, no.

p.s. the church pays no taxes womp womp

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Someone please tell me how many different events I erroneously mixed together.

    I can for money… Otherwise, enjoy the orgy!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    Some of the other writings that didn't make the cut for the canonical bible are wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    Bet a non canonical bible with only cut content is a way better book.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
  • [+] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago*

    Apocalyptic foretelling was apparently a pretty widespread hobby in the time when the β€˜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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Well, he didn't say you can't rape little boys...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    No, that's death penalty!

    Oh, wait, it says "man", can't lay with a "man", not boy. Hmm. Best to ask for forgiveness just to cover your ass.

    It's certainly okay to murder a boy if he has been disrespectful or disobedient. (Please note that this is not my personal view, this is Biblical, I didn't write it please don't call ICE on me).

    18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, β€œThis son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. ~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    Beatings are also fine from a Bible perspective, but not too much... but don't spare the rod (Proverbs 13:24)! Read your Bible for further details (I recommend King James 1611).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    β€œOh, 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    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".

    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    "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.

    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Honestly, I might eat my hat here and go on a rabbit hole about early priestly marriage myself.

    "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." Okay, so as you know, from your source; phrased as so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea The wikipedia provides some clarification on the issue. "prohibition of a man and a woman who have both taken vows of chastity to live together in a chaste and non-legalized partnership (the so-called virgines subintroductae, who practiced syneisaktism)" the last word being a Greek term for "spiritual marriage" which was chaste, but also unofficial in the eyes of the law? I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly myself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneisaktism

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The Council of Nicaea did not decide the books of the canon, it decided on whether Jesus was equal to God or not…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    It decided many things other than "Jesus was equal to God or not."

    You should read about it!

    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (7 replies)