all 23 comments

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

next you should consider what if all of the bible is made by romans

[–]Vulptex[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

No, it was made by Jews, though not very Orthodox ones. Almost all the people in it go by Aramaic or Hebrew names. They do not have high opinions of the Roman empire or human authority. In the earliest days the Romans despised Christians more than anything else in the world. And when they realized they couldn't defeat them, they decided to infiltrate it and tear it down from the inside instead. And their damage persists to this day.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

why do you think christian capital is in rome, not jerusalem

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

It was Jerusalem before the Roman empire took over. Look at 1 Corinthians 16, the donations are being taken to Jerusalem, not Rome.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

right so yeah romans did take it over, and they wrote the bible how they saw fit. You realized that for the timothy right? Why not also read the rest of the bible and consider it from that lens.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

They only wrote some of it. They couldn't remove what was doubtless well known, but they were free to add new material and accuse dissidents of not using the full canon.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

The parts they kept out are the true canon that should be read.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There's probably a lot of truth to that, and I'm sure they burned and destroyed many things. But they couldn't just remove the things that were well-known to all Christians that easily. They had to alter them instead.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

yes but they altered more than just timothy is the point here

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Right, I specifically mentioned the mutilations to 1 Corinthians.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think parts of the Orthodox church only followed the gospels and from the new testament for quite some time.

I don't think they were any less authoritarian or family focused than the western church during that time.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Humans will always find ways to go in that direction because it's biological instinct. We want to reproduce as many of our kind as fast as possible, neglecting everything else.

But our own book does not have the highest view of this overall. The exceptions are of course the person who made these Paul forgeries and Ezra the scribe having God call eunuchs abominations and claiming that the Jews need to preserve the "holy race" and not marry goyim, who are also an abomination for not being born Jewish.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

jesus was a jew and so were all his followers. He would have said you can only follow him if circumcized. Paul is one who said you didn't need to after jesus died in order to get more followers and to profit from religion. Jesus just wanted to oust romans from Jerusalem which his followers did achieve years after.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

He would have said you can only follow him if circumcized.

No, that was just James, a Torah-thumping Jewish supremacist who hated Jesus and his ministry and only reluctantly believed after he saw him rise from the dead with his own eyes. I'm not convinced he had a true change of heart after that.

As for Peter, he only opposed Paul when James was around, who quite possibly had some power in Jerusalem. And considering what the rest are associated with I highly doubt they were against Paul and gentiles either.

Paul is one who said you didn't need to after jesus died in order to get more followers and to profit from religion.

There is no evidence that Paul profited from it, and in fact quite to the contrary if 1 Corinthians 9 is authentic (although it likely isn't).

Jesus just wanted to oust romans from Jerusalem which his followers did achieve years after.

What?! There's no evidence for this. He taught turn the other cheek, including toward the Romans (render unto Caesar).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

people only start religions for money. Jesus wasn't starting a new religion tho, I'm talking about Paul.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Neither of them were starting religions. They were both Jews.

Even Orthodox Jews will give gentiles commandments to please God. Judaism has never been openly anti-goyim, they just recognize the circumcized as part of an extra covenant. So early Christians not turning all the goyim away shouldn't be such a shock.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

paul was he wanted to expand the religion to gentiles that didn't cut their penis.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just explained to you why that shouldn't be so surprising.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ok good

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to everyone who believes, to the Jew and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written: “But the righteous one will live by faith.”

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things, for there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and distinguish the things that matter, being instructed from the Law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to people who are blind, a light to those in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, possessing in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth— you, therefore, who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one is not to steal, do you steal? You who say that one is not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who loathe idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.

For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yup