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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, “This 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).
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).
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm
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
Well, he didn’t say you can’t rape little boys…
My fucking sides. What is this from?
History of the World: Part I
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.
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).
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).
“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:
Didn’t that one come later because certain members of the clergy were having kids and functionally turning their positions into hereditary fiefdoms?
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
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.
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!
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm
Yes, but canonicity was certainly not one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
https://www.bartehrman.com/what-was-decided-at-the-council-of-nicaea-in-325/
Wait what? Really? I mean I figured. Just…it was basically like that?
there’s a whole section of the library called fiction
it’s going to blow your mind
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)
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm
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