Thinking about starting a 2nd reformation

[OMM]

You know... For my own amusement. As a social experiment. Just to see how it plays out.

... seeing as the last one went off so well without a hitch.

[GenesisNemesis]

We don't need no social experiments. Plenty of cults and dictatorships to look at that give us all the information we need.

[Minimalist]

If any thing needs reforming it is the fucking church!

[Dom]

If any thing needs reforming it is the fucking church!

Well, that's kind of what it was about?

[jerry mcmasters]

It's been a nice clean 500 years since the last one. About time!

[OMM]

Nothing too drastic. Just whittling down the new testament down to the gospel of mark and... nothing else.

Everything else deemed heretical. Especially anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

Shouldn't be a problem I hope. Everyone will be cool with it, methinks.

[Minimalist]

Don't forget to tell the priests to stop fucking the altar boys.

[Reltzik]

Like, isn't Protestantism in general already a constant cycle of "let's have a reformation of the reformation we're already having"

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like the first reformation wasn't a bloody deal.

[Minimalist]

If any thing needs reforming it is the fucking church!

Well, that's kind of what it was about?

They did a shitty job of it.

[TinyDave]

Nothing too drastic. Just whittling down the new testament down to the gospel of mark and... nothing else.

Everything else deemed heretical. Especially anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

Shouldn't be a problem I hope. Everyone will be cool with it, methinks.

saul of tarsus

So a double reformation.

A fact checking of facts.
I'm cool with that.

Paul, or saul of tarsus (as he was attributed) said what?

[OMM]

Don't forget to tell the priests to stop fucking the altar boys.

That goes without saying. With extreme prejudice.

[OMM]

Like the first reformation wasn't a bloody deal.

Well, they have the first and second amendents to deal with now....

...oh, wait.... Oh fuck....

I might have made a horrible mistake.


....

...oh well.

[OMM]

Nothing too drastic. Just whittling down the new testament down to the gospel of mark and... nothing else.

Everything else deemed heretical. Especially anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

Shouldn't be a problem I hope. Everyone will be cool with it, methinks.

saul of tarsus

So a double reformation.

A fact checking of facts.
I'm cool with that.

Paul, or saul of tarsus (as he was attributed) said what?

Blah, blah, blah, my hallucinations gave a divine excuse, blah blah....


Anyone can make that claim. So what?

[TinyDave]

saul of tarsus

So a double reformation.

A fact checking of facts.
I'm cool with that.

Paul, or saul of tarsus (as he was attributed) said what?

Blah, blah, blah, my hallucinations gave a divine excuse, blah blah....


Anyone can make that claim. So what?

Unless the claim is backed by reasonable evidence there is no reason to believe it.
Blah, blah, blah.

[Cavebear]

Nothing too drastic. Just whittling down the new testament down to the gospel of mark and... nothing else.

Everything else deemed heretical. Especially anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

Shouldn't be a problem I hope. Everyone will be cool with it, methinks.

Whats the big deal with you and Mark?  It's like HE wrote it any more than the others did.  And it was all make-believe when written a century or so after the claimed events.  I know because I was there at the time and he was illiterate.

[Inkubus]

Nothing too drastic. Just whittling down the new testament down to the gospel of mark and... nothing else.

Everything else deemed heretical. Especially anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

Shouldn't be a problem I hope. Everyone will be cool with it, methinks.

Whats the big deal with you and Mark?  It's like HE wrote it any more than the others did.  And it was all make-believe when written a century or so after the claimed events.  I know because I was there at the time and he was illiterate.

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products...

I can't speak for OMM but I'd guess he knows full well the gospels were written anonymously and I would also guess the reason he names Mark is because there are not four gospels there is only one.
Matty and Luke were later inventions that fleshed out the story a wee bit and a decoy to take attention away from the glaringly obvious: whoever wrote 'Mark' had never set foot in Palestine.
John appears to have missed the story altogether, reams of flowery language but nowt else.

Edit: Ok four gospels but only one story.

[Cavebear]

Whats the big deal with you and Mark?  It's like HE wrote it any more than the others did.  And it was all make-believe when written a century or so after the claimed events.  I know because I was there at the time and he was illiterate.

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products...

I can't speak for OMM but I'd guess he knows full well the gospels were written anonymously and I would also guess the reason he names Mark is because there are not four gospels there is only one.
Matty and Luke were later inventions that fleshed out the story a wee bit and a decoy to take attention away from the glaringly obvious: whoever wrote 'Mark' had never set foot in Palestine.
John appears to have missed the story altogether, reams of flowery language but nowt else.

Edit: Ok four gospels but only one story.

That is actually fascinating. While I have read the bible a few times (you have to understand the primary culture you live in), I couldn't describe the differences among Matthew/Mark/Luke/John to save my life. It's sort of like reading 4 versions of medieval writers describing how Marcus Augustus Cleopatra Ceasar from Mars was shot to death in Paris in 20 BC.

[Inkubus]

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products...

I can't speak for OMM but I'd guess he knows full well the gospels were written anonymously and I would also guess the reason he names Mark is because there are not four gospels there is only one.
Matty and Luke were later inventions that fleshed out the story a wee bit and a decoy to take attention away from the glaringly obvious: whoever wrote 'Mark' had never set foot in Palestine.
John appears to have missed the story altogether, reams of flowery language but nowt else.

Edit: Ok four gospels but only one story.

That is actually fascinating.  While I have read the bible a few times (you have to understand the primary culture you live in), I couldn't describe the differences among Matthew/Mark/Luke/John to save my life.  It's sort of like reading 4 versions of medieval writers describing how Marcus Augustus Cleopatra Ceasar from Mars was shot to death in Paris in 20 BC.

Well maybe you should have focused more on what was said rather than trying to understand the culture. Half of Matty and half of Luke is copied directly from Mark.
Maybe that's why they sound a bit samey. Same bloke wrote them.

[Cavebear]

That is actually fascinating.  While I have read the bible a few times (you have to understand the primary culture you live in), I couldn't describe the differences among Matthew/Mark/Luke/John to save my life.  It's sort of like reading 4 versions of medieval writers describing how Marcus Augustus Cleopatra Ceasar from Mars was shot to death in Paris in 20 BC.

Well maybe you should have focused more on what was said rather than trying to understand the culture. Half of Matty and half of Luke is copied directly from Mark.
Maybe that's why they sound a bit samey. Same bloke wrote them.

Yeah "some bloke" many decades after did and not anyone with remotely-direct knowledge of the alleged life and event.

So, out of curiosity, why do you seem to think Mark was better than the others?  I mean, you said "Half of Matty and half of Luke". Which halves?

[Inkubus]

[quote="Inkubus" pid='394571' dateline='1679189395']

Well maybe you should have focused more on what was said rather than trying to understand the culture. Half of Matty and half of Luke is copied directly from Mark.
Maybe that's why they sound a bit samey. Same bloke wrote them.

...So, out of curiosity, why do you seem to think Mark was better than the others?

Where did I say that?

I mean, you said "Half of Matty and half of Luke".  Which halves?

Your interest in Christianity compelled you to read the bible 'a few times' and yet you appear to be unfamiliar with the Synoptic problem

[Tomatoshadow2]

Believers would say, 'you can't change something about a church that was divinely inspired. Yeah, sure, how about religion starts paying taxes.