poisonedbywhy

Asking why until it kills me.

[PolymathicPhallus @PolymathPhallus]

Spread this to all the Christians proudly coming out this Pride Month!

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@ClassificatedFi @trad_west_ I understand your feelings are hurt. It’s okay champ. Remember Jesus loves you. It will be okay.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@moroni7_3 Clever, self affirming text, only thing that can undo you is the Bible.. which cuts half the population out..

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

Jesus said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18) — yes, that’s in the text.

But let’s be precise about what Jesus actually meant by “church” (ekklesia). He used the word only twice in all the Gospels. In both cases (Matthew 16 and 18), it clearly means the assembly of people who follow him — the called-out community of believers — not a later hierarchical institution with popes, cardinals, and centralized Roman authority.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

The Catholic Church traces its leadership straight back to the apostles (Peter first)? That's the official story, but it smooths over a lot.

Jesus used the word "church" (ekklesia) only twice in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18 and 18:17), and in context it simply meant a called-out assembly or gathering of his followers — the people, not a hierarchical institution with popes, cardinals, and centuries of Roman power structures. He never described building the kind of centralized organization we see later. That development came after him.

As for Paul — he never knew the earthly Jesus. His only "experience" was a dramatic vision on the road to Damascus years after the crucifixion, where he claims the risen Jesus appeared to him personally and commissioned him. The original apostles who actually walked with Jesus were skeptical of Paul at first, and he openly clashed with them (see Galatians 2). Paul shaped a lot of later theology and church structure, but he wasn't part of Jesus' inner circle during the ministry.The early movement grew organically from Jewish roots and resurrection faith — agreed. But turning that into "the Catholic Church is the direct, unchanged continuation with Peter as first pope" involves a big leap.

Jesus spoke of his followers as a community of people, not the elaborate institution that developed later.

And "Jesus would believe his wife (the church)"? If we're going by Jesus' own words, he'd probably be more concerned with the actual gathered people living out the kingdom than defending any particular later organization

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

“Son of Man” in John 6 is tied to giving eternal life — agreed, it’s a big claim.But Jesus still says the Father sent him, the Father draws people to him, and the Father set his seal on the Son of Man (John 6:27, 38-40, 44). In Daniel 7 the Son of Man figure receives authority from God. Jesus applies that role to himself without ever saying “only I can be Son of Man�� or “this title means I am God and no one else can share any part of it.”He’s claiming to be the unique giver of eternal life as the Danielic Son of Man. That’s exalted. But it doesn’t make the title automatically exclusive or a direct proof he’s asserting full divinity above all humans in the strong sense. The language still shows dependence on the Father.The “obvious = God” reading is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

Son of Man” isn’t just any title” — fair point. Jesus did use it ~80 times.

But that doesn’t make it an exclusive title that only he can claim, or one that automatically puts him in a category above everyone else. In Daniel 7:13-14, the “one like a son of man” is a human-looking figure who receives authority, glory, and an everlasting kingdom from God. It’s exalted, yes — but it still carries the basic sense of “human one” or representative figure. Jesus applies this vision to himself heavily, but he never says “I alone am the Son of Man” or “no one else will ever be called Son of Man.” He uses it in very human contexts too: “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” “the Son of Man came eating and drinking,” “the Son of Man will be betrayed,” etc. He’s clearly claiming to be that Danielic figure with special authority — I’ll grant the connection is deliberate and striking. But the title itself doesn’t function as an explicit claim that he is uniquely divine or in a completely different category from other humans. It’s exalted self-reference, not a hard ontological shutdown on anyone else ever sharing the label in any sense. Calling it automatically “exclusive” in the strong divine sense overreaches what Jesus actually says with the title.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@ClassificatedFi @trad_west_ Son of man is not an exclusive title. Neither is son of god.. he never uses it in an exclusive way that asserts a position above you… that’s Paul not Jesus

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

The Catholic Church “never walked back anything”?

That’s the spin.

Dei Verbum 11 (1965) says Scripture teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”

Pre-Vatican II teaching (Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu) insisted on total inerrancy — no errors in anything Scripture asserts, historical or factual details included. Limited inerrancy was explicitly rejected as intolerable.The new qualifying phrase (“for the sake of our salvation”) was the key change. It opened the door to the widespread post-1965 view that the Bible is only guaranteed error-free on matters of salvation, while allowing human limitations and inaccuracies elsewhere.Dual authorship and “not word-for-word dictation” were already acknowledged. What shifted was the scope of inerrancy — from full/plenary to effectively limited in practice.

That’s why Catholic biblical scholarship took a sharp turn toward historical-critical methods after 1965. It was a real softening of the previous position, even if wrapped in continuity language. Pretending nothing changed is revisionist and dishonest.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

Nicea (325 AD) didn’t “invent” Jesus’ divinity? Cute framing. It addressed the Arian controversy where Arius taught Jesus was a created being — not co-eternal, not of the same substance as the Father. The council condemned that view and affirmed what was already the dominant belief among most Christians: the Son is fully divine, "begotten not made, of one substance with the Father."

But let's not pretend this was just a minor clarification among friends.

The fact that a massive controversy erupted — requiring ~300 bishops, imperial involvement, and the introduction of the non-biblical term homoousios ("same substance") — shows the issue was live and divisive, not a settled slam-dunk.

Arianism had real traction, especially in the East. If divinity was "already widely believed" with zero controversy, why did it nearly tear the church apart for decades afterward? Arian emperors and bishops kept fighting the Nicene position long after 325.Yes, high Christology appears early:

Paul (Philippians 2:6-11 — "in very nature God"; Colossians 1:15-20 — creator and sustainer). John (1:1 "the Word was God"; 8:58 "before Abraham was, I am"; 10:30 "I and the Father are one").

But the New Testament also contains passages that Arians happily used to argue Jesus was subordinate or had a beginning ("the Father is greater than I," "firstborn of all creation," etc.). Early church fathers show a range of views too — some quite subordinationist. Worship of Jesus as divine existed early, but the precise metaphysical definition of how he was divine (eternally co-equal, same essence, etc.) was still being hammered out.Calling it "already widely believed" smooths over the messy reality: 4th-century Christianity was not a monolith. Nicea didn't pull divinity out of thin air, but it did draw a hard doctrinal line, canonize a creed with extra-biblical language, and use imperial power to enforce it. That was a major development in defining orthodoxy, not just rubber-stamping what "everyone" already agreed on. The popular myth that Nicea invented the divinity of Jesus is overstated. But the defensive claim that it was all settled, peaceful, and obvious from day one is equally revisionist. The council was necessary precisely because significant voices denied full co-equality — and they didn't disappear quietly. Both the Dan Brown-style conspiracy ("vote invented God-man!") and the overly tidy "it was always unanimous" version miss how doctrinal development actually worked in the early church: through debate, politics, scripture, and philosophy.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@andy_aotearoa @NoHolyScripture Can a scientific theory be a fact?

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@andy_aotearoa @NoHolyScripture Thank you for proving my point

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@alloy1111 @sola_chad I don’t seek to change others, I simply want them to have a choice, essentially to consent to their belief. That’s not a common thing

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@EvanGor93154017 @YeshuasKat @sola_chad So what you’re experiencing is shaped by your experience with religion. Your logical conclusion is too narrow. There are other options than what you listed.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@_Ochiedike If the only thing keeping you from doing evil is the fear of hell, then you’re not a good person—you’re just well-behaved under threat.

[poisonedbywhy @poisonedbywhy]

@alloy1111 @sola_chad In what context did I say I don’t care?