Why exactly was the Book of Revelation allowed to remain part of the Biblical Canon? It's strange because so many other books (now called Apocrypha) that at one time or another were extremely popular and revered by orthodox Christians, were eventually removed from the Canon (The Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Peter, The Questions of Bartholomew, etc.) due to their supposed outlandish elements and overly fantastic points.
But Revelations is literally more outlandish and fantastic than all of these combined - a woman riding a seven-headed dragon? Two "witnesses" that are able to kill people by emitting energy from their mouths a la DBZ?
And I've heard others tell me that the reason was that some clergy suspected that the Apocrypha I already mentioned were not written by one of Jesus' actual disciplies - but my counter-argument is that not only was Revelation not only NOT written by the actual John (the disciple that Jesus "loved"), but that even in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there were already doubts that Revelations had been written by John the Disciple (as seen by the writings of Pope Dionysius of Alexandria).
It's simply such a strange addition to the Bible: thematically, it does not mesh well with the other parts of the New Testament; its imagery is a confusing blend of Jewish and Hellenic and Eastern symbolism that also conflicts with the imagery in the New Testament. Its point isn't even clear. And as I said in my first sentence: so many writings eventually fell out of favor from orthodox Christianity and were excluded due to the supposedly outlandish elements in their stories - but then why was Revelations - which reads like a bad trip - allowed to remain?
t.Not a Christian (feel like I have to say this or the thread will get spammed by Chrisfag posters who want to proselytize rather than discuss academic points)
and there was a great deal of debate over the canonization process, many works that were excluded and deemed apocryphal were done so over the objections of members of the clergy who wanted them included, and vice versa for many canonized works, most notably Revelation. Even after canon lists started coming out many churches didn't include it and to this day many still don't.
Nathan Brown
It's still surprising that a book that attracted so much criticism and dissent from even the Church doctors/fathers would still be included in the Bible in the end.
Logan Reed
Because it is from God
Angel Murphy
>The Gospel of Peter Literally a Gnostic gospel
Cooper Campbell
If you think it's literal and not obvious allegory then you are retarded
Joseph Hall
It is not known with any certainty if the Gospel of Peter is gnostic: it was merely being accused of being gnostic by some Church authorities, due to its strange content. And, really, if you've read it, there's nothing particularly gnostic about it - even the giant, anthro cross doesn't seem gnostic.
It has nothing to do whether it is literal or allegory, cretin.
Thomas Phillips
Because it makes a hell of a last chapter. Think about it, you've got all these stories about Jesus and you're convinced, you think "Well ok then, this Jesus fellow seems alright, I'll follow him, but whats the endgame?". The Book of Revelation is like an epilogue, a little preview of what is to come. It's the stinger to the Bible.
Jack Kelly
iirc at one of the scriptural councils back in the day it was kept in only because they thought it was written by the apostle john, but they were wrong
Xavier Mitchell
BABYLON IS FALLEN
Logan Perry
It's just a treatise on the corruption of the Roman Empire
Levi Watson
>there is ample evidence that it was written by John the apostle. The very fact that the author of the apocalypse simply calls himself John is a dead giveaway that he was well known throughout the churches in Asia Minor. Additionally, the fingerprints of John the apostle are all over the apocalypse! One need only open their eyes and ears to apprehend the clues. For example, John, and John alone, identifies Jesus as the Word, or Logos (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13). Likewise, John alone identifies Jesus as the true witness (John 5:31–47; 8:14–18; Revelation 2:13; 3:14), and it is John who most exploits the Mosaic requirement of two witnesses (John 8:12–30; Revelation 11:1–12). Added to this, there is undeniable commonality in the symbolic use of the number seven that transcends its literal meaning. It is also noteworthy that like the gospel of John, Revelation is a literary masterpiece.
Christian Fisher
Are you me? I was thinking about the same thing.
Sebastian Murphy
This, the Book of Revelation is hella tight.
Jack Walker
Because it's fucking cool It's literally an acid trip, the writer is tripping balls the entire way through
Wyatt Diaz
Cherry picking: the belief
Jose Richardson
I think your counfused about why certain books didn't make the cut. It wasn't so much that these gospels were "strange" or "weird" as opposed to the fact that they just weren't deemed theologically to be entirely Christian.
Grayson Lewis
>Even after canon lists started coming out many churches didn't include it and to this day many still don't.
Um what? No form of Christianity leaves it out.
Aiden Kelly
It's certainly out of character with the rest of the NT, but there's some OT on par with it, including Ezekiel. Revelation is largely a reboot of an OT book.
Though fundamentalists would of course disagree, there's pretty obviously some political code in there, and if you can decipher it, I suppose it is a valuable historical reference aso the nature of the times. Revelations, most likely, describes a series of events that have already passed, through various national and factional symbolism, and a lot of folks have made good cases as to the meaning of these.
There are, however, a lot of less fantastical books, some of which are really key to the continuity of the core story (such as everything surrounding Enoch and where the fuck all the folks Caine and Lilith were fucking came from), but there were philosophical and political concerns surrounding those, causing inconsistency in the desired narration to boot, so they were tossed out.
It's a conglomeration of some old stories, every word of which is hotly debated, so there's bound to be some holes. Most of these are still out there, perhaps based in less well maintained sources, though a few are likely forever lost of time - but there's always the occasional set of Dead Sea Scrolls.
transcend religious paradigms. If you take a more perennial traditionalist approach to religion its clear that revelations is at least partially referring to certain mystical prophecies.
Makes for a more interesting story. Also kills about a third of that list of 5,000 biblical contradictions that folks keep posting that image of, although I'm sure it also generates several more.
I'm less upset about the crazy stuff they chose to include, and more perturbed at all the valuable stuff they tossed out for what often seemed largely contrived and emotionally or politically driven reasons.
On the other hand, if the Cathars had their way, rather than been genocided, Christianity today wouldn't have included the Old Testament, or Revelation, and that might have made for a much more sane, less anachronistic Christianity, less cemented in stuff written exclusively by and for ancient Hebrews. Still, I'd be pissed if they didn't at least make an effort to preserve all those texts as a valuable backdrop, if non-canon.
Angel Morgan
No. Even back in the 3rd century, there were already doubts that John the Disciple had truly written Revelation. The styles of writing are too different: the Gospel uses an elegant Greek style, whereas the Book of Revelation uses an entirely different style, complete with differing sets of words for identical objects that are never used in the Gospel of John.
Stop lying.
Also, the Gospel of John was likely not even written by the disciple John, either: it's the latest of the canonical Gospels, being written at the very least some 70 years after the ministry of Jesus.
Aiden Bell
The thing is, spiritual text usually talk in code. It was far more common in the past to write about something using symbolism than today, this unfortunately goes over a lot of peoples heads. Besides a few chronologies, Deuteronomy (and perhaps a better explanation of the fall of man such as whats found in the works of jacob boehme), I find a lot of value in the Old Testament which is applicable even today. Wisdom of Sirach is probably the among the most practical books in the Bible imo.
Julian Thomas
True enough, certainly all sorts of stuff from the OT is applicable, but the overall tone and nature of the God described in the OT is one of a god of war, vs. the NT God which is betrayed as a loving being encouraging harmony and enlightenment (until you get to Revelation). The Cathars would have drastically changed the overall nature of the religion.
Then again, during those early to mid hard times of Christianity, much like those ancient hard times among the Hebrews whose work they draw upon, you might kinda need that war like outlook, just to survive.
Liam Nelson
>betrayed portrayed
(I mean he was betrayed too, but not what I was after.)
John Martin
People are retarded when it comes to interpreting revelations
Revelations was written in the Rome while Nero was carrying out a Christian witch hunt. Any Christian literature was destroyed immediately.
Revelations was written in code. Interpreting it literally is absolutely retarded. The beast is meant to be the devil/Nero. Theologians/classicists have deciphered it.
Sebastian Taylor
source
Bentley Wood
Because it openly reveals Jesus as God.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Because it was written to an eyewitness to the risen Christ Jesus, John the Beloved.
Because it does not contradict anything in the OT.
Because Christians since 95 AD have known it to be the inspired Word of God.
Because to throw out one single word of it brings curses to a man.
Daniel Perez
Amillenialism has to contort facts so much to stick to their heresy.
Did Jesus reign and rule for a thousand years after Nero was killed? Was the devil imprisoned for a thousand years after Nero was killed?
Was the entire world and our two heavens demolished when Nero died?
Did the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, descend from heaven when Nero died?
Or was Nero simply another type of antichrist, as John said there were many?
Jace Kelly
>People are retarded when it comes to interpreting revelations
Yes, people like you. It's the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not "revelations".
Lucas Johnson
Jesus does not single handedly win the Battle of Armageddon against the collective armies of the world by being a hippie.
Carter Campbell
Yet he BTFO some usury practicing bankers, and everyone forgets that, cuz muh seven headed dragons and shit.
Plus, the widespread belief that the apocalypse is just around the corner does rather discourage in investing in multi-generational efforts to improve man and his odds of survival.
I mean blazing star ship stories are fun and all, but leave them to the Hindus, they kinda have that market cornered.
Mason Adams
There was a good info pic that warned people not to fall for the "nice Jesus" heresy.
As C.S. Lewis said about Aslan, his Christ analog, "he's not a tame lion".
Jace Green
Christ does say "I came not to bring peace, but the sword."
Hudson Powell
For the families which were divided, not the literal sword you retard. Daddy says its libation time for the emperor after praising Yaweh? Fuck dad. Fuck the libation.
Brayden Nelson
As almost everything in the bible, it works on more than one level.
2 Kings 19:35 And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.
That's Jesus slaughtering 185,000 trained soldiers, in an instant.
Angel Thomas
>For the families which were divided, not the literal sword you retard. You assume "families" can only be taken in the most personal context.
(Granted, this funny thing is almost exclusively OT. Also doesn't count Revelation.)
Brayden Hall
God has killed in the millions, easily.
Not someone you want as your enemy.
And yet, most of you have made him your enemy, when all he wants to do is make you his family and shower you with blessings.
Ponderous.
Julian Smith
Were any other of the excluded books as fabulously predictive?
Asher Rogers
>a woman riding a seven-headed dragon? Read Dave Hunt's "A Woman Rides The Beast" to fully understand this. And it's beast, not dragon. The woman is Mystery Babylon, better known these days as Roman Catholicism, and the beast she rides is the NWO, the kingdom of the Antichrist.
>Two "witnesses" that are able to kill people by emitting energy from their mouths a la DBZ? The two witnesses are Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets), and they simply do what they did during their era. Plagues, fire from the sky, withhold all the rain; it's all been done before.
It will shatter your normalcy bias into a billion pieces.
Brandon Cox
Revelation was not written by John "the Beloved", cretin. It was written by a completely different individual who is referred to as 'John of Patmos'.
Owen Gomez
>source
Christopher Nguyen
A number of Church doctors/fathers were of the belief that John the Disciple was not the actual author of Revelation, including: Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.
-Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Board of Trustees; Catholic Church, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Administrative Committee; United States Catholic Conference (2005). "The Book of Revelation". The New American Bible: translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient, including the revised Psalms and the revised New Testament. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1363–1364. ISBN 978-0-19-528903-9. OCLC 436316983. Retrieved 2011-12-29.
Furthermore: >"Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone" -Revelation, Book of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
>"The Book of Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities whereas the Gospel and Epistles are all stylistically consistent which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel/Epistles's author" -Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 468. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
Luis Thomas
Its the only part of the bible ive read completely and its fucking WILD!
Jack Ross
>Interpreting it literally is absolutely retarded. This, but you're off on your reasoning why. It wasn't written in code to be subversive, it's a piece of apocalyptic literature. Using code and symbolism are literally defining traits of the genre. It was a common genre at the time, and people would have understood that. Part of the reason modern interpretations of Revelation are so stupid is that people have forgotten what apocalyptic literature is (and the tropes that go with it), so they come up with stupid explanations (like the John was tripping) to explain something that would have been easy to understand when it was written.
I'm really surprised no one in this thread has mentioned this yet.
Jace Wood
It's a lot funnier if John was tripping
Ayden Adams
>where the fuck all the folks Caine and Lilith were fucking came from I'd be interested to see an explanation for how Cain found people, but what's this about Lilith? Didn't she fuck off after trying to ride Adam and start screwing demons or something?
Owen Davis
"Lilith" is just rabbinical Jewish bullshit. Has nothing to do with Christanity.!
Evan James
Yeah, no shit. That's not what I was asking him, you mong.
Nicholas Wilson
Relying on Catholics to tell you about the bible. Shame on you. They care nothing for it, especially the Revelation, as it clearly shows they are the Whore of Babylon.
John the beloved apostle wrote the Revelation.
You can, for sure, know this because Jesus said to the people listening to him that some (one) of them would not die until he saw Jesus descend from heaven in glory.
John the beloved apostle heard Jesus say that; the other apostles spread the rumor that John could not die; John the beloved apostle saw Jesus descend from heaven in glory before he died, and wrote about it.
Never trust Catholics about anything, ever, and you'll be better off.
Henry Reed
>Ehrman, Bart D
Also, this atheist does not get to overturn 1900 years of Christian scholarship on his own say-so. He's a non-believer and has no more chance of understanding the bible than you do.
Oliver Torres
Cain's people were his sisters, and there was never a Lilith, and no pre-Adamic races.
Christopher Wright
Justin Martyr [Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308] (a.d. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work, the prophecy of the millennium of the saints, to be followed by the general resurrection and judgment. This testimony of Justin is referred to also by Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 4.18]. Justin Martyr, in the early part of the second century, held his controversy with Trypho, a learned Jew, at Ephesus, where John had been living thirty or thirty-five years before: he says that “the Revelation had been given to John, one of the twelve apostles of Christ.”
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.
Joseph Roberts
Cain didn't have any sisters (or more precisely Adam and Eve didn't birth more children until after he fucked off). He murdered Abel, started wandering, then somehow fathered the first shepherds/metallurgists/musicians (somehow). An explanation as to how would be nice.
I am very much aware there was no Lilith, at least in Hebrew canon, but when I read someone saying "where the fuck all the folks Lilith fucked came from" I raise an eyebrow, because from what I've read she went to stealing babies and sucking demon cock after she hightailed it out of Eden.
Easton Peterson
Yes, he did.
Women are rarely if ever listed in the bible, yet we know women are 51% of the population.
You people with your "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" fallacies.
Joseph Thomas
In order to be a part of said family I need to adhere to a rather strict set of rules, the breaking of any of which sends me to a deep dark place for the rest of time. If I'm good, I get to exist forever praising God in heaven. As far as I'm concerned I have no wish to exist forever, so both options seem kind of shitty.
Nicholas Gutierrez
Why do you Christcucks have a vendetta against Ehrman? He's a respectable academic with views that are supported by textual criticism, archeology, and scholarly views of history.
Jaxson Lee
Is that how adoptions work in your country?
No, you just confess out loud that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead.
You will live forever no matter which destination you choose. You are an immortal soul.
Xavier Sanchez
>triggered by the name of a well respected and mainstream scholar
Jordan Rivera
He's not respectable in any sense of the word.
Unless you also think Dan Brown is a respectable theologian, in which case I can't help you.
Daniel Thompson
He's neither. He's a book hustler, plain and simple.
Anthony Gutierrez
Yes, as in he had sisters, or as in he had sex with them? Because I mentioned in my post that he had sisters. Whether or not he populated Enoch via incest I guess is up to if you're an Ethiopian Jew/Orthodox and/or think Jubilees is canon.
Matthew Cook
Actually his peers think very little of him, and tear apart his work with ease. I suggest you get in touch with Metzger if you want to know the real Ehrman.
Jayden Sanchez
Depends. I was raised Catholic, went atheist, some of my best friends essentially converted me to nondenominational Protestantism, and now I'm leaning deist. I've actually started reading the bible and it is rather fascinating stuff and does seem to contain much truth, but I tend to harbor an extremely pessimistic view of people in general and cannot foresee a day where everything will turn out alright. I do try to pray and thank God for what I have, but at the same time wrestle with doubt every single day. I've always been taught to question and rationalize everything, downside being that I hold few convictions in life and have a hard time adhering to something for a long period of time. >Immortal soul If that's true then that doesn't necessarily comfort me. The idea of stretching on forever seems absolutely terrifying.
Eli Russell
Both. Make it simple. Cain is marked so nobody kills him. Only his family exists. One of his sisters loves him and leaves with him. Those two found a city, and populate an area. Just like Adam and Eve had some four dozen kids.
And we know that the descendants of Cain were worse than he was.
Leo Lewis
he writes for journals and for the general public. let's cut to the chase: you dislike him because you disagree with all of biblical scholarship. nothing about his views are particularly unique in his field
Sebastian Ortiz
Don't be terrified of eternity. It is the absence of time, not a "very long" time.
What I told you is found in the 10th chapter of Romans, if you'd like to read it for yourself. Just know that those two things, confessing Jesus to be Lord, and believing in your heart God raised him from the dead, are supernatural acts that require supernatural assistance.
So just ask the Holy Spirit to help you. He'd be delighted.
Jaxon Russell
Well if anything I'll read that chapter. I feel that if I ever do wish to strengthen my faith I'd be better served knowing what was written.
Henry Richardson
I dislike him because he profits off of publishing books that cast unfounded, reckless, and spurious doubts on the Word of God.
Whenever I find a poster who doesn't believe the bible has been maintained properly, they cite Ehrman 99.9% of the time.
Because Ehrman is not a christian by his own confession, he has absolutely no framework to understand the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in preserving the scriptures for all generations.
No, he's screaming about a hundred thousand movable nus, none of which matter.
Nathan James
If I might make a suggestion, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
See if you can get your hands on the bible on CD, and listen to Romans 10.
There's something about receiving information through your ears, rather than your eyes, that sharpens your faith.
Or read it aloud to yourself. Either way, godspeed and I will be praying for you.
Grayson Gray
Why do you Christcucks come on a board if you know you're going to get triggered? We're not going to humor your crap, and we're going to discuss Christianity in an academic and historical context; not as though it literally occurred or were truth.
And I'm looking at Ehrman's history, and he appears to be well-respected and reputable enough. Funny that his main detractors happen to be evangelicals and professors at divinity schools.
Ryder Rogers
>Being a furry Not really surprised someone who has irreparably ruined his life by getting suckered into a degenerate internet meme doesn't believe in God
Asher Sanchez
>Christian >Believing in irreparable ruination
Begone, agent of Satan.
Josiah Butler
>buzzwords: the post
Sorry, did you have anything to refute about the actual point I raised, or did you simply waste your time just to post a dated ad hominem from 2007? Shoo - go pray your deity instead.
Jace Stewart
American bible bashers are the funniest bible bashers. My sides.
Thomas Hernandez
I can only speak for myself. I get far worse than triggered here. Maybe you believe in the supernatural, maybe you don't. But God's not the only supernatural being that exists, and not all the angels are what you might call "friendly".
I'll tell you why I come here. I come here because if I was not saved as a child, I would be here for recreation/entertainment/lulz, just like most of you. I wouldn't go to church, I wouldn't read the bible, I wouldn't know Jesus, I wouldn't be saved. Nor would I go anywhere where I might encounter such information; I'd just be here.
So there had to be somebody crazy enough, stubborn enough, and nuts enough to come here to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, or I would never have known how to be saved.
I've led many men and women to the Lord here, because I'm caustic enough, stubborn enough, and crazy enough to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ here.
I'm here to tell people that if I can be saved, so can they. If I can have a relationship with the living God, so can they. If I can escape the punishment I deserve in an eternal lake of fire, so can they.
That's why I'm here. To redeem the day, because it is evil. To preach the gospel of the cross to the poor, at the uttermost parts of the earth, at the end of time.
Isaac Ramirez
Bible bashers means people who do not believe the bible.
I think you're looking for "bible thumpers". (which came about as a good way to get rid of cysts that appear on the hand and wrist; a good thump with a heavy leather bound bible does the trick every time.)
Sebastian Hall
Why the fuck are you preaching here? This board is dedicated to history and the humanities, not to proselytizing or to supernatural events. Seriously, fuck off.
Go to /b/ or /x/: they'll humor your trash there.
Cameron Hill
Because HisStory is His to tell.
Alexander Green
Actually we've had many fruitful discussion about religion on this board. Just because every so often an autistic fedora tipper wanders in and gets his nose out of joint that the honor of Saint Dawkins is being besmirched doesn't really mean we can't continue to discuss it here. Sorry mang, you're outvoted
Jaxon Murphy
You just admitted you're a shitposter. Great job.
Daniel Collins
Bible-basher (also Bible-thumper)
noun
informal
A person who expounds or follows the teachings of the Bible in an aggressively evangelical way.
Thickie
Xavier Powell
>to this day many still don't. That's plain wrong
But it is true that Luther wanted to classify it apocrypha, though his contemporaries weren't having any of it.
Robert Martin
We clearly don't agree on your usage of the term "shitposter". What I post was written thousands of years ago.
Way back in history.
Where do your opinions come from?
Joseph Carter
Never trust a Catholic about anything. Good rule to live by.
Aiden Robinson
>Actually we've had many fruitful discussion about religion on this board
No you haven't, liar. If a religious fuck makes a thread about religion, the whole thing devolves into "I'm Catholic and I'm right because of this passage and you're all going to hell" - "Well I'm Protestant and this other passage says I'm right and you're wrong and you'll be the one going to Hell!" - "Oh yeah well I'm Orthodox and this passage says I'm the one that's in the right and you're wrong and I'll be the one laughing when you're in Hell!". Without exception.
When someone tries to make a thread to discuss Christianity academically, it gets flooded by Christcuck shitposters like you who come disrupt the conversation by posting Bible verses and pontificating about how the posters are sinners.
You Christcuck fedora LARPers are the cancers of this board.
Lastly, every time there's a poll, atheists/agnostics outnumber the religiousfags here: even better, the religious ones aren't uniformly Christcucks, as there's always a significant amount of Buddhists and pagans and other religions. This board isn't a Christcuck board.
Bentley Martinez
You not understanding a thread does not invalidate the thread.
Just stick to the threads where you think something you can understand is happening.
Easy peasy.
Joseph Murphy
Anyone who believes any spooky book is the infallible word of a sky daddy is a deluded dickhead. The only sensible way to approach these texts its allegorically.
First principles: What kind of census do you have to travel to where you're originally from, anyway? What would be the point?
Asher Howard
We can still discuss religion here from a theological perspective, if you get bootyblasted about it that's your own issue, deal with it
Jacob Price
>being this buttblasted on a weeaboo board. kys
Gavin Cox
A Roman one.
The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel: "From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "
Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows: "I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."
Ayden Torres
>implying there's anything difficult to understand in Christianity
Give me a break - Christianity has nothing complicated in it. It's a movement started by slaves and the dregs of society: there's nothing in it that is complicated or hard to understand, even though it pretends to shroud itself in mysticism to scare believers into submission.
Now Buddhism (Hell, any of the Dharmic religions) - now that's what you can call complicated. But Christianity? Don't flatter yourself.
Samuel White
Actually, the census' stipulated that people havd to return to their actual residence to take the census where they are currently residing.
It still doesn't answer why Joseph had to return to his ancestral home where he was no longer residing.
In other words, you're still wrong, and trying too hard.
Connor Murphy
Yeah, considering how the bible has been a great historical preserver of religious writings, it's sad that a bunch of stuff was chucked out entirely. It would have been hugely informative for the history of religion to have an extended canon of all Christian writings available during the 2nd to 4th centuries
Tyler Long
There are supernaturally impossible things to understand in Christianity, which is why you cannot 1) say out loud that Jesus is Lord while 2) believing in your heart God raised him from the dead.
Just can't do it.
The bible says what a man sows, so shall he reap.
All of your precious new age eastern mysticism religions are based on that one little tiny kernel of wisdom in the bible.
Thomas Lee
Just quoting the part you literally could not have read above.
Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out . . . "
Isaiah Green
I don't think "chucked out" is the right way to describe. Various communities circulated various religious text. During the councils they codified what was and wasn't canon among those text. No "complete" Bible ever existed, and deciding which Gnostic, heremtic, ect text would be authentically Christian would be difficult.
Blake Perry
Things don't last, generally. Papyrus? Years, maybe. Sheepskin? Century? Maybe?