_Why_ is God dead?

[Calrid]

@ochaye

Kindness, patience, self-control, generosity, willingness to forgive, peaceableness, cheerfulness, trustworthiness?

I’ve never met a Christian who followed them any more than any atheists I have met tbh. Perhaps I am just unlucky or perhaps people behave entirely the same way regardless of religion.

And what about women not being allowed to talk in Church in Paul’s works, having to cover their heads etc, and about 300 seperate laws in the New and old testament I don’t want to go into.

Like I say some so called rules are timeless and hardly Christian in origin. However some bigotry and intolerance results from taking the words of people who only meant to direct Christians in the fledgling Church and transplanting it to modern conventions as if somehow Jesus himself said them. This is redundant. Sure go with what Jesus said but what Paul said was meant for his fledgling church not all mankind forever, he didn’t have the right and was never accorded the status of a prophet who spoke for God.

No doubt if he were alive he would of been appalled at the idea that he was speaking directly for God except in various visions perhaps, such an arrogant imposition would of been blasphemy to him.

Progress! Now how about an answer? How is it that the moral behaviour of non-Christians is superior to that of all Christians?

Or shall we explain your intervention as a bit of irritation that your coffee went cold, and pass on?

The moral behaviour of Christians in my experience is no more or less superior than any other persons, Christian, religious or not.

We all have our morale codes most of them are enshrined by law, some by social convention and some by personal credo.

There are and have been plenty of evil Christians and plenty of evil atheists, religion historically seems to make no real difference.

[ochaye]

@Calrid

@ochaye

Kindness, patience, self-control, generosity, willingness to forgive, peaceableness, cheerfulness, trustworthiness?

I’ve never met a Christian who followed them

Then you’ve never met a Christian, have you. This list is what Christianity specifies as the check list for identification.

And what about women not being allowed to talk in Church

Ooooh, capitalisation!

Women are not allowed to tell men what to do in the church because they are more prone to deception and wily persuasion than men are. They are allowed to speak if their speech does not constitute teaching. That rule is for their safety, and for the safety of the whole church. Which of course is just what thieves, the violent, cheats, adulterers etc. want to remove.

about 300 seperate laws in the New and old testament I don’t want to go into.

Go right ahead. It’s all about deity being dead, or not.

Like I say some so called rules are timeless and hardly Christian in origin. However some bigotry and intolerance results from taking the words of people who only meant to direct Christians in the fledgling Church and transplanting it to modern conventions as if somehow Jesus himself said them.

Examples?

Sure go with what Jesus said but what Paul said was meant for his fledgling church

Not a bit of it. What Paul told ‘wild’ Gentiles to do was what ‘house-trained’ ex-Jews were already doing. There is very little indeed that Paul did not source to the OT, which is what Jesus did, time and again. You can’t get a cig paper between them.

he didn’t have the right

Who says? An ‘atheist’? Paul did not use his own authority, he used Biblical authority that nobody could argue with. That’s why his letters are still read and treated as divine oracle. He, Peter, John and James were all completely agreed anyway.

and was never accorded the status of a prophet who spoke for God.

He was more than a prophet. There were many prophets in every congregation, many of whom he directed.

[Calrid]

@ochaye

@Calrid

@ochaye

Kindness, patience, self-control, generosity, willingness to forgive, peaceableness, cheerfulness, trustworthiness?

I’ve never met a Christian who followed them

Then you’ve never met a Christian, have you. This list is what Christianity specifies as the check list for identification.

And what about women not being allowed to talk in Church

Ooooh, capitalisation!

Women are not allowed to tell men what to do in the church because they are more prone to deception and wily persuasion than men are. They are allowed to speak if their speech does not constitute teaching. That rule is for their safety, and for the safety of the whole church. Which of course is just what thieves, the violent, cheats, adulterers etc. want to remove.

about 300 seperate laws in the New and old testament I don’t want to go into.

Go right ahead. It’s all about deity being dead, or not.

Like I say some so called rules are timeless and hardly Christian in origin. However some bigotry and intolerance results from taking the words of people who only meant to direct Christians in the fledgling Church and transplanting it to modern conventions as if somehow Jesus himself said them.

Examples?

Sure go with what Jesus said but what Paul said was meant for his fledgling church

Not a bit of it. What Paul told ‘wild’ Gentiles to do was what ‘house-trained’ ex-Jews were already doing. There is very little indeed that Paul did not source to the OT, which is what Jesus did, time and again. You can’t get a cig paper between them.

he didn’t have the right

Who says? An ‘atheist’? Paul did not use his own authority, he used Biblical authority that nobody could argue with. That’s why his letters are still read and treated as divine oracle. He, Peter, John and James were all completely agreed anyway.

and was never accorded the status of a prophet who spoke for God.

He was more than a prophet. There were many prophets in every congregation, many of whom he directed.

They can make any check list they want my experience is they seldom follow it any more than anyone else follows there own lofty ideals.

Paul was not a prophet and his words were never meant to be gospel.

Jesus was the messenger Paul was merely a founder of the Church one that tried to supplant what later became Eastern orthodoxy.

[ochaye]

@Calrid

They can make any check list they want my experience is they seldom follow it

But you have never met one, remember. (If you live in the USA, it would be close to a miracle if you had.)

Paul was not a prophet

He was, actually. A prophet or prophetess was not necessarily someone like Agabus, or Anna, of whom few have heard, who foretold the future. A prophet was also, and more importantly, someone who enunciated divine principles, often to kings, and that of course was very much part of Paul’s role. But he was far more than a prophet, he was an apostle, whose great task was to set up the church, and on divine principles only. Apostle to the Greeks, mostly, and that by agreement with the apostle to the ex-Jews, Peter.

and his words were never meant to be gospel.

Peter referred to them as ‘Scripture’. The churches treated them, read them, as Scripture. No fake Christian has ever attempted to remove Paul’s letters from the Bible, because it would result in instant discredit.

Jesus was the messenger Paul was merely a founder of the Church

Merely? Jesus founded the church, Paul was one of those who planted branches of it. His writing is based on the gospel material and the OT, and could be extrapolated from them had he not written. And would have been. So people who don’t like Paul are wasting their breath.

one that tried to supplant what later became Eastern orthodoxy.

Ah. Interesting spelling, again. So Christianity is genuine, and is threatening, so fake versions like the Eastern Orthodox have to be treated as valid, even though they are laughable, to supplant the real thing.

God is not dead, not even a little bit, is he.

[Ingenium]

@ochaye

Women are not allowed to tell men what to do in the church because they are more prone to deception and wily persuasion than men are. They are allowed to speak if their speech does not constitute teaching. That rule is for their safety, and for the safety of the whole church. Which of course is just what thieves, the violent, cheats, adulterers etc. want to remove.

[Calrid]

@ochaye

@Calrid

They can make any check list they want my experience is they seldom follow it

But you have never met one, remember. (If you live in the USA, it would be close to a miracle if you had.)

Paul was not a prophet

He was, actually. A prophet or prophetess was not necessarily someone like Agabus, or Anna, of whom few have heard, who foretold the future. A prophet was also, and more importantly, someone who enunciated divine principles, often to kings, and that of course was very much part of Paul’s role. But he was far more than a prophet, he was an apostle, whose great task was to set up the church, and on divine principles only. Apostle to the Greeks, mostly, and that by agreement with the apostle to the ex-Jews, Peter.

and his words were never meant to be gospel.

Peter referred to them as ‘Scripture’. The churches treated them, read them, as Scripture. No fake Christian has ever attempted to remove Paul’s letters from the Bible, because it would result in instant discredit.

Jesus was the messenger Paul was merely a founder of the Church

Merely? Jesus founded the church, Paul was one of those who planted branches of it. His writing is based on the gospel material and the OT, and could be extrapolated from them had he not written. And would have been. So people who don’t like Paul are wasting their breath.

one that tried to supplant what later became Eastern orthodoxy.

Ah. Interesting spelling, again. So Christianity is genuine, and is threatening, so fake versions like the Eastern Orthodox have to be treated as valid, even though they are laughable, to supplant the real thing.

God is not dead, not even a little bit, is he.

Paul is not listed as prophet by any Christian religion, he was imply stating a code of context to Corinthians and Romans living in a nation of non believers with culturally different moral standards.

The only reason Roman Catholicism insisted on emphasising these words was because they wanted to ensure the basis of their power rested with Peter, something which would later, along with other theological and political differences, cause the first great schism of the church. If Paul is echoing any words from Jesus or the OT this is merely a confirmation, if he’s telling people how to behave in the face of the multicultural immorality of Rome or Greece, then it is merely for them. Paul goes to great lengths to discuss the way one should be have when in Rome, its also obvious when he is trying to preach the values of Jesus. He is not nor ever was a prophet or able to share Gods laws, beyond his ministry in Jesus name.

It’s not a question of not liking Paul, its a question of context. Christianity particularly fundamentalist places undue stress on the parts which for most of history were relatively ignored, and cherry pick, otherwise women would be forbidden from talking in church and would have to cover their heads, and now it seems even the Catholics are suddenly starting to give them great weight and abandoning other laws from the New testament, this is disingenuous. Its sad really, its clear when Paul is advising the new church to morally righteous in the face of Pagan Rome and Greece and when he is preaching gospel and the words of Jesus. You either follow all Paul’s laws of which there are quite a few as you no doubt know, or you follow none, you don’t get to pick and chose because it becomes pragmatic to do so, to emphasise one set of laws and not others. The reason they were however pretty much ignored throughout history was because they were not really meant to stand the test of time like Jesus message was. It’s hypocritical to then turn around and start emphasising them when convenient and to quote mine to make your agenda.

If I or most people have never met a Christian then who are these mysterious people and has anyone met one?

Religion isn’t dead no, God I doubt he was ever “alive” and if he was he certainly then never died.

[ochaye]

@Calrid

Paul is not listed as prophet by any Christian religion

Ah. ‘Any Christian religion’. Any faux-Christian caricature, that is.

Of course everyone refers to Paul as an apostle, because recognised apostolic authority over-rules prophetic ministry, which can easily be false. Serious theologians do however indeed regard Paul as having been given a prophetic role, based on the record of the book of Acts, in which Paul was to witness before Caesar and his court. (And all of those faux regiments, those cardboard cut-outs, admit that this book is canonical. Though of course, post-shifting skeptics will with alacrity and great noise doubt its provenance just as soon as it is cited in evidence. God is not dead, not even a little bit, is he.)

Not that it matters if Paul had not been a prophet- unless we are now to be enlightened as to why it is necessary to be a prophet in order to be religiously significant. (Perhaps there is an eastward bias to be traced here. We see the suggestion that a heterodox sect is ‘orthodox’, and now we may be getting the hint that Islam is even better!) The arbitrary criterion of an individual poster is not worth discussion, surely- so let us see why we are spending time on this issue.

he was imply stating a code of context to Corinthians and Romans living in a nation of non believers with culturally different moral standards.

That’s called prophecy. It’s what Samuel, Amos, Malachi and the rest of them did to Hebrews among pagans. And what Muhammad did to try to stop his contemporaries from looking like pagans, without them being anything other than pagans. But then he only aped the Roman model.

The only reason Roman Catholicism insisted on emphasising these words was because they wanted to ensure the basis of their power rested with Peter

Which words are these? (Somehow, I knew that the mere mention of Peter would bring out this authoritarian propaganda.)

something which would later, along with other theological and political differences, cause the first great schism of the church.

There is only one Christianity now? There were several, a few lines up. Not that anyone knowledgeable believed that this ‘church’ was anything other than a joke that it was unwise to laugh at.

It’s not a question of not liking Paul, its a question of context. Christianity particularly fundamentalist places undue stress on the parts which for most of history were relatively ignored, and cherry pick, otherwise women would be forbidden from talking in church and would have to cover their heads,

That’s what happened in ‘church’ buildings only half a century ago. There were few if any women clerics, and women in pews wore scarves or hats, and took them off at home. If that was the general rule then, why is it ‘fundamentalist’ now?

It is indeed, in this case, a question of context. What certain people have done is not only overthrow Scripture; they have thrown out Tradition, too. Without a shred of Reason, moreover. Yet more comedians!

You either follow all Paul’s laws of which there are quite a few as you no doubt know

I don’t. Paul told Christians not to speak in tongues all at once, which is of course normally ignored by ‘Pentecostals’. That was a new situation. But otherwise, he merely reinforced the existing laws and norms accepted if not promoted by Jesus.

And even if he had never written a word, Christians would have written the same things, and followed them.

[Calrid]

@ochaye

@Calrid

Paul is not listed as prophet by any Christian religion

Ah. ‘Any Christian religion’. Any faux-Christian caricature, that is.

Of course everyone refers to Paul as an apostle, because recognised apostolic authority over-rules prophetic ministry, which can easily be false. Serious theologians do however indeed regard Paul as having been given a prophetic role, based on the record of the book of Acts, in which Paul was to witness before Caesar and his court. (And all of those faux regiments, those cardboard cut-outs, admit that this book is canonical. Though of course, post-shifting skeptics will with alacrity and great noise doubt its provenance just as soon as it is cited in evidence. God is not dead, not even a little bit, is he.)

Not that it matters if Paul had not been a prophet- unless we are now to be enlightened as to why it is necessary to be a prophet in order to be religiously significant. (Perhaps there is an eastward bias to be traced here. We see the suggestion that a heterodox sect is ‘orthodox’, and now we may be getting the hint that Islam is even better!) The arbitrary criterion of an individual poster is not worth discussion, surely- so let us see why we are spending time on this issue.

he was imply stating a code of context to Corinthians and Romans living in a nation of non believers with culturally different moral standards.

That’s called prophecy. It’s what Samuel, Amos, Malachi and the rest of them did to Hebrews among pagans. And what Muhammad did to try to stop his contemporaries from looking like pagans, without them being anything other than pagans. But then he only aped the Roman model.

The only reason Roman Catholicism insisted on emphasising these words was because they wanted to ensure the basis of their power rested with Peter

Which words are these? (Somehow, I knew that the mere mention of Peter would bring out this authoritarian propaganda.)

something which would later, along with other theological and political differences, cause the first great schism of the church.

There is only one Christianity now? There were several, a few lines up. Not that anyone knowledgeable believed that this ‘church’ was anything other than a joke that it was unwise to laugh at.

It’s not a question of not liking Paul, its a question of context. Christianity particularly fundamentalist places undue stress on the parts which for most of history were relatively ignored, and cherry pick, otherwise women would be forbidden from talking in church and would have to cover their heads,

That’s what happened in ‘church’ buildings only half a century ago. There were few if any women clerics, and women in pews wore scarves or hats, and took them off at home. If that was the general rule then, why is it ‘fundamentalist’ now?

It is indeed, in this case, a question of context. What certain people have done is not only overthrow Scripture; they have thrown out Tradition, too. Without a shred of Reason, moreover. Yet more comedians!

You either follow all Paul’s laws of which there are quite a few as you no doubt know

I don’t. Paul told Christians not to speak in tongues all at once, which is of course normally ignored by ‘Pentecostals’. That was a new situation. But otherwise, he merely reinforced the existing laws and norms accepted if not promoted by Jesus.

So Jesus said women should cover there hair and that it was a rule to be eternally followed, he spoke widely on codes of behaviour did he amongst the Greeks and Romans. As far as I know Jesus condemned bigotry in all forms, hatred, intolerance, money lending, and adultery but was pretty light on overarching social conventions. That’s what I mean by there are no Christians, because no one really follows much of what Jesus actually said.

The church now uses his words do they to condemn people in a bigoted intolerant manner. This is not Christianity it is Pualianity and they have no right. That’s not Christianity its deliberate sophistry.

In no Christian religion was Paul considered a prophet. Hell he never even met Jesus who was thirty years dead at least by the time he came to minister so he’s not even an Apostle.

Well all books that mentioned James (the first Archbishop of Eastern orthodoxy) as being pre-eminent, or any other disciple were either burned or considered heresy and or weren’t copied. So there definitely was a drive to make sure Papal Rome’s power was ascendant that cause at least two schisms. Later they tended to be less considerate and just burned heretics or locked them up or threatened them into silence and on more than one occasion perpetrated attempted genocides to silence dissenters.

And even if he had never written a word, Christians would have written the same things, and followed them.

You mean they would of suggested a code of behaviour for people living amongst pagans. Probably but then they likely would not of ended up in the new testament any more than laws from Leviticus (with the exception of the ten commandments) were considered for Christians not Jews.

Jesus also spoke on the need for circumcision saying it was not necessary. What he didn’t do was tell people that for all time all the laws that existed in Judeah at the time were to be followed amongst all nations. neither for that matter did Paul.

[ochaye]

@Calrid

So Jesus said women should cover there hair and that it was a rule to be eternally followed

Correct.

That’s what I mean by there are no Christians, because no one really follows much of what Jesus actually said.

No-one you know follows what Jesus said. And yet you say that there are many sorts of Christianity. How can there be many sorts of Christianity, but no Christians?

James (the first Achbishop of Eastern orthodoxy)

Oh, dear. ILP reduced to absurd propaganda, now.

as being pre-eminent were either burned or considered heresy and weren’t copied. So there definitely was a drive to make sure Papal Romes power was ascendant that cause at least two schisms.

And it goes on. God isn’t even unwell, is he?

[Only_Humean]

(split off from the Philosophy forum)

[Calrid]

@ochaye

@Calrid

So Jesus said women should cover there hair and that it was a rule to be eternally followed

Correct.

Nope Jesus never said that

That’s what I mean by there are no Christians, because no one really follows much of what Jesus actually said.

No-one you know follows what Jesus said. And yet you say that there are many sorts of Christianity. How can there be many sorts of Christianity, but no Christians?

James (the first Achbishop of Eastern orthodoxy)

Oh, dear. ILP reduced to absurd propaganda, now.

as being pre-eminent were either burned or considered heresy and weren’t copied. So there definitely was a drive to make sure Papal Romes power was ascendant that cause at least two schisms.

And it goes on. God isn’t even unwell, is he?

If you are any example of Christians then Christianity was dead before it got started, because you actually believe the history of the Church was any more than political power plays and guff. Laughable.

The Church has wrecked Christianity throughout history for its own selfish aims. It is and always was a rich corpulent power monger. At least now we’ve devolved the church from state… But idiots never learn. It’s all about corruptuiing texts taking things out of context and being the biggest group of self righteous bigots on Earth these days. Laughable, no wonder your religion is slowly dying. Good riddance. No Christians ever actually got a chance to run it, it was all more often than not run by politicians, greedy money mongers and those with a bent and will to gain political power. Learn the history then maybe you will know why schisms happened, they were because of the Churches actions, not because of dogma more often than not. With the exception of Eastern orthodoxy which was basically because they never believed Rome really represented The ME and they differed of ecumenical issues, but these were not the crux.

The only difference now is they have no power, and yet they are still tied up in the same crap that made the Church the fall of any Christian values it ever held. Sad really. Because I am not Christian but it had a message, that message was destroyed by religious idiots who got corrupted over and over and over again and made it all about power.

Most established religions are corpulent maggots feeding on the body of Christ.

Oh how the might have fallen Jesus would weep.

Why is saying James I was the first Arch Bishop of orthodox Christianity propaganda when its established historical fact? Are you really this clueless about history?

James was 1st Arch Bishop of Jerusalem, Peter of Rome and then proclaimed when the title came into being the 1st Pope. I’m talking to ignorant hicks aren’t I?

[ochaye]

@Calrid

@ochaye

@Calrid

So Jesus said women should cover there hair and that it was a rule to be eternally followed

Correct.

Nope Jesus never said that

Of course he did. Paul could not have made that instruction otherwise. There were ‘Jews’, Christian and otherwise, in Corinth and all over his ‘patch’ who would have very soon let the Gentile Christians know if that was a bit of Paul doing his own thing. Not half.

You say that there are many sorts of Christianity. How can there be many sorts of Christianity, but no Christians?

Or would you prefer it in French?

If you are any example of Christians then Christianity was dead before it got started, because you actually believe the history of the Church was any more than political power plays and guff. Laughable.

Desperation!

Why is saying James I was the first Arch Bishop of orthodox Christianity propaganda when its established historical fact?

Sure. And Bugs Bunny was 14th President.

[phyllo]

Calrid

Jesus also spoke on the need for circumcision saying it was not necessary.

I don’t believe he ever said anything about the necessity of circumcision.
Ochaye

Of course he did. Paul could not have made that instruction otherwise. There were ‘Jews’, Christian and otherwise, in Corinth and all over his ‘patch’ who would have very soon let the Gentile Christians know if that was a bit of Paul doing his own thing. Not half.

I don’t believe Jesus said anything about women covering their hair. Most likely just a traditional idea. I doubt that anyone would make a fuss about something so trivial.

[ochaye]

@phyllo

I doubt that anyone would make a fuss about something so trivial.

Like combining answers.

I don’t think so.

[HexHammer]

People are usually a bunch of narsisitic people when we don’t have our butt kicked, then only those who has a compulsery motivation of beeing compassionate will regardless of being religious or atheistic, do good. Else we only are somewhat compassionate towards our closest where we will oppunisticly expect something in return, and/or not be exploited.

[Calrid]

@phyllo

Calrid

Jesus also spoke on the need for circumcision saying it was not necessary.

I don’t believe he ever said anything about the necessity of circumcision.
Ochaye

Of course he did. Paul could not have made that instruction otherwise. There were ‘Jews’, Christian and otherwise, in Corinth and all over his ‘patch’ who would have very soon let the Gentile Christians know if that was a bit of Paul doing his own thing. Not half.

I don’t believe Jesus said anything about women covering their hair. Most likely just a traditional idea. I doubt that anyone would make a fuss about something so trivial.

Ah yeah and so is all the other stuff and yet Christians pick and choose which to follow as they have always done. You are also wrong up until recently many conservaitive Catholic congregations made woman cover there hair in church and remain silent. If you ask me Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus these days and seldom did. Which is probably why it is slowly dying as a religion. It seldom followed any tenets itself and has been a disgraceful example of Christianity in many of its forms, the worst of which (currently at least, the Catholics being the least representative of Jesus) is fundamentalism which are people who have abandoned almost every principle of Christianity particularly in the US where they should be liberal if they model themselves on Jesus but many of them behave like assholes.

[Calrid]

@ochaye

Why is saying James I was the first Arch Bishop of orthodox Christianity propaganda when its established historical fact?

Sure. And Bugs Bunny was 14th President.

Ochaye you can’t argue with facts the orthodox church traces its primacy back to James the just. Nothing is going to change that, and just saying deperate, and shit, and bum is not really an argument. You’re obviously woefully uninformed about the churches history which is riddled with politics, warmongering, and the seeking of wealth.

It’s pretty much a waste of time talking to you as you have no idea what you are talking about.

There was a competition at Christianity for which of the sects would win out, gnosticism, James’s ministry, Peters etc.This is not in dispute. the first ecumenical council met to decide what would be cannon, and what would be considered inauthentic, what followed was a debate that was set to rip upart Christianity not then but in the future when people challenged the authority of Rome not once but hundreds of times. Learn some history ffs. This is not contentious its just history.

IUntil you start sounding like you know what the fuck you are talking about I’m just going to ignore you.

[ochaye]

@Calrid

@ochaye

Why is saying James I was the first Arch Bishop of orthodox Christianity propaganda when its established historical fact?

Sure. And Bugs Bunny was 14th President.

Ochaye you can’t argue with facts the orthodox church

Isn’t it amazing how atheists know what is orthodox. They know that God does not exist, but they know precisely what God has revealed, and to whom.

What Calrid refers to is the picturesque collection of men in black frocks and long beards who, without any cause whatever, describe themselves as the Eastern Orthodox Church. They do, however, happen to rather aptly fit the description of the apostle Peter when warning the real churches of false teachers deserving a terrible fate.

traces its primacy back to James the just.

The sure way to silence an Orthodox is to ask for the evidence of that. The Orthodox organisation doesn’t do that, because it cannot. It claims to have primacy, but does not even know how to substantiate its claim. As an Anglican archbishop told them, “There is not a single person who can claim succession from any apostle.” What is more, the very concept of primacy is without a shred of evidence, and is pure invention. What is more, the concept of succession is actually debunked and labelled as dangerous by the apostles.

So what we can be quite sure of is that these people are not the church, and must be in some proportion culpably ignorant or liars, along with their crooked friends in the Roman branch. Those with reason to fear the real, democratic church, the ‘salt of the earth’, obviously prefer that church to be controlled by these crooks, which is the reason that they still survive.

There was a competition at Christianity for which of the sects would win out, gnosticism, James’s ministry, Peters etc.This is not in dispute.

That is pure invention. I don’t know whose it is, but someone is fabricating, either through serious delusion, or through such fierce opposition to the challenge of Christ that began the violent persecution of the church by first ‘Jews’, then Romans, and then by the medieval tyrannies.

the first ecumenical council met to decide what would be cannon,

The Biblical canon was decided at the moment it was first read in the first century, probably before c. 75 CE. Any group that takes three hundred years or more to decide what is the message of God is not the church! It may, otoh, deserve to be dealt with as sociopathic hazards should be dealt with, as the Bible itself makes very clear is the eventual fate of interlopers.

Until you start sounding like you know what the fuck you are talking about I’m just going to ignore you.

If that saves us from the spreading of propagandistic drivel, that may be a good thing.

[Calrid]

@ochaye

If that saves us from the spreading of propagandistic drivel, that may be a good thing.

Established historical fact is delusion, lol. I rest my case.

You’re completely ignorant on this subject, read a book.

All the cannon Gospels are propagandist drivel anyway, you seem to like cherry picking what you will and wont accept is Christ’s message too.

Eastern Orthodoxy is the 2nd largest branch of Christianity after Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism weighs in at 3rd, I doubt you even knew that.

Their church was established by Jesus who is the one and only leader or “Pope”, and does not rest on Peters rock or any other Papalcy doctrine, it’s first Arch Bishop was a disciple of Christ not Peter, there is no primacy equal to Jesus in this religion. These are facts, indisputable ones. I say again learn some damned history or shut the hell up.

Try looking up the non canonical gospels would be a good start and then the Council of Nicea.

Appologies though it’s St Andrew (Apostle/Disciple of Christ) who is the first “Primate” of Orthodox Christianity, this title is not a Pope nor do any of its Bishops have more authority than any other. I never have been any good with names.

Bishops of Byzantium (until 330)

* 1. St. Andrew the Apostle (38-founder)
* 2. St. Stachys the Apostle (38-54)
* 3. St. Onesimus (54-68)
* 4. Polycarpus I (69-89)
* 5. Plutarch (89-105)
* 6. Sedecion (105-114)
* 7. Diogenes (114-129)
* 8. Eleutherius (129-136)
* 9. Felix (136-141)
* 10. Polycarpus II (141-144)
* 11. Athenodorus (144-148)
* 12. Euzois (148-154)
* 13. Laurence (154-166)
* 14. Alypius (166-169)
* 15. Pertinax (169-187)
* 16. Olympianus (187-198)
* 17. Mark I or Marcus I (198-211)
* 18. Philadelphus (211-217)
* 19. Cyriacus I (217-230)
* 20. Castinus (230-237)
* 21. Eugenius I (237-242)
* 22. Titus (242-272)
* 23. Dometius (272-284)
* 24. Rufinus I (284-293)
* 25. Probus (293-306)
* 26. St. Metrophanes (306-314)
* 27. St. Alexander (314-337)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ec … tantinople

[ochaye]

@Calrid

@ochaye

If that saves us from the spreading of propagandistic drivel, that may be a good thing.

Established historical fact is delusion, lol. I rest my case.

The thing to do is to open it. If it can be found. Back-dated lists are as useful as election promises or chocolate teapots. What is needed is contemporary documentation. And that simply does not exist.

For your information, this crap about James is based on one mistranslated word in Acts! A bloody good thrashing is overdue.

And Wiki was overrun by Jesuits long ago.