“From now, Willard, your name is Clark.”
Jesus has so many things in common with Trump. It’s crazy.
Two thousand years from now, people will be reading the gospel of Little Marco Rubio, Lyin Ted Cruz, and RINO Lindsey Graham. Maybe they’ll just be known as “Little”, “Lyin”, and “Rino”. And everything Trump has done will be said to be a miracle.
in the story of Jesus 47’s parallel is Caesar
deleted by creator
Very common cult tactic to this day
Also a friend tactic. It’s just a nickname
We have a Posh Mike at work.
I don’t even think he’s called Mike.
I have friends of witch I could not tell you their legal name at Gunpoint
deleted by creator
That’s one way to keep it a secret.
Learn from the best.
The names don’t have obvious meaning in English but they did in their original languages. Simon is a Hebrew name from the torah and means “he who hears”. Peter comes from Petros, the Greek translation of Cephas, the original Aramaic name Jesus gave him and means “rock”. So Jesus gave a Jewish guy with a Hebrew name an Aramaic (nick)name because Jesus saw him as the rock (foundation) of his church.
Similarly Platos name means broad, which was because he was a wrestler and kept up his physique. It also spawned a joke I’m fond of.
Diogenes wanders into Platos academy and says “Broadly speaking-” To which Plato responds “Yes I was now shut up”
I am amazed that the name “Pierre” (also french for stone) litterally comes from the greek for “rock”
Rome and it’s consequences
Hmm, makes it more likely that Jesus never existed and the whole thing is made up by the church, imo. It’s always retrospective with names and meanings, especially iif you name them “foundation”.
Jesus obviously existed. He wasn’t a god (he never claimed he was) but he obviously existed.
No, it’s not obvious at all. There’s no historic account of him aside of the bible. And yeah, the trinity thing, that was the church ~300 a.c.
There is historical account of him, just not from contemporary figures.
There are Roman historians who write of him, but they came years after.
It is generally accepted that the Christ figure is based on a historical figure however the story we are told now is much more tenuous as it is largely based on written works from folks who are retelling tales that may (or may not) have been known
Mind you we also have historical writings about Santa Claus
they don’t really talk of Jesus specifically though that’s the kicker.
If Jesus did miracles and had such an impact on the empire his name would be known his story would be better known.
The claim that Roman historians wrote about him is semi true they claim there are Christians and they have a Messiah but they never talk about what he did or anything. They mostly speak of the persecution of these people. So it makes a lot of things we think about Jesus unverified.
The only thing we know is Pontius Pilate under the rule of Tiberius allegedly killed their Messiah. That’s it.
The name Jesus, who he was or what he did is unverified and likely largely stolen. I’m pretty sure Gilgamesh was tied to being a carpenter or a son of a carpenter for instance
There are no contemporary records of Jesus.
Even of Pilate killing a guy named Jesus.
It all came later.
I’m simply saying there is a historical figure who fits the bill BUT the story as folks know it now starts as a retelling of a tale by people who came later.
So it starts with an untrustworthy narrator.
I’m not trying to say he existed one way or the other just that it’s more likely a guy did exist who loosely fits the bill and the story as we know it was able to grow and be built from there.
I’d bet the “real figure”, if I had to speculate, was more likely rejecting the theism of Judaism over trying to push another religion.
Yeah, his name was Simeon bar Jonah, Simon, son of Jonah, or by modern style, Simon Johnson. Then Jesus pops up and starts calling him the Rock… Simon the Rock Johnson. (also fun gravy, Dwayne means fishhook)
I thought Dwayne meant pipe?
Now everything make sense. In spanish, “Peter” is “Pedro”, that sounds like “Piedra”, that means “Rock”
deleted by creator
See also ‘petrify’ (make into rock) and ‘petroleum’ (rock fat)
The female for “Pedro” is “Petra”, what make it more obvious, and also “Petronila” is a woman name, that comes from “Petroleum”
I’d be fucking mad if my parents named me after petroleum
Late XX century in Mexico, were pretty common name your child based in their born date. So, there are so much woman called “Petronila” because were born in March 18th
“The name’s Diesel now”
omg, in french Peter is translated to Pierre which also means “rock”! i always assumed that was a coincidence
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
BTW I know this one because of Angels & Demons.
You can see them too?
Don’t know why you got downvoted, because that is some very good information. Thanks.
Cult 101
Pretty much this. Cults isolate you as their first step. Anything that can be used to make you feel beholden to them, or “fresh/new”. They make you think your parents are the enemy, and convince you that your real “family” is inside the cult.
Had a friend in college who wiped out repeatedly - stumbling down stairs, walking into trees while talking, stepping on his own feet - all through freshman year.
Everyone started calling him “Trip”.
Which, I guess, implied he’d joined a Cult?
One guy gets a nickname? No problem. You have a guy claiming to be a holy man assigning people names? Then you got a cult
I don’t actually believe Jesus ever claimed to be holy or did half the shit he is claimed to have done. I think he was an activist and kind person and the story got twisted over time.
He was a doomsday prophet.
He claimed God was about to show up and judge everyone for their sins and then start a new world order. But then he got killed by the state and one or two of his followers had hallucinations of him a few days later (more common than you think). They essentially then rationalized WTF him coming back from the dead meant, and that morphed into Jesus being God. The first few decades after his death was a whirlwind of arguing about the “true” nature of Jesus and standardization within the baby church. Over the next few centuries there were more arguments that were less fundamental than turning Jesus into a God, though being a religion, the arguments were insane and fierce. Cue to today and we have a bunch of sub-versions of Christianity and even a whole spin-off religion.
Only the true messiah would deny being the messiah.
You have a guy claiming to be a holy man assigning people names?
“Simon, you’re the most reliable person I know. You’re my rock. I’m going to refer to you as My Rock, because you are my most loyal and stalwart friend.”
Huge red flag. Avoid this person at all costs. You are in a
profoundly deep, possibly romantic relationshipCult.Is the guy naming him also claiming to be the messiah? That seems to be the part of the quotation you’re missing out on
Is the guy naming him also claiming to be the messiah?
All while performing bonafide miracles, sure. The pet name for a loved one isn’t the problem.
If, two thousand years from now, the High Priestess of the Church of Getting Your Vaccines So You Don’t Spread Illness was referred to as “Saint Cuddlebug” I’d consider that kinda sweet, not cultish.
I’m not abjectly religious but I don’t believe Jesus ever called himself the Messiah.
No, but this is pretty culty… Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
LOGICAL FALLACY - AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.
If X, then Y does not imply if Y, then X.
LOGICAL FALLACY
Calling someone a pet name is not a matter of logic.
Of course not. It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership that is the logical fallacy.
The argument is:
- If CULT, then NICKNAME
- i.e. If X, then Y
Your interpretation seems to be:
- If NICKNAME, then CULT
- i.e. If Y, then X
Which is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
It is your interpretation that having a nickname implies cult membership
That’s OP’s claim. My interpretation is that he gave Simon the nickname out of affection not domination
That’s OP’s claim.
No it’s not.
OP’s claim is that cults give nicknames. Not that all entities that give nicknames are cults.
But your second statement makes me realize that you likely have an inherent bias that is preventing you from seeing the logic involved.
deleted by creator
Also every Hollywood agent with Jewish clients from 1900 until present day.
Paul’s is the funniest because he only got one letter changed from “Saul,” even though he had used to be the biggest menace. He was a Christian hunter. Not like a professional one, more like McCarthyism but against Christians.
Saul was a perfect example of sin, and Jesus said, “Let’s switch that 'S with a P, and he’s all good. '”
(Please don’t hurt me, I’m joking)
Edit: Wait, my bad. Jesus changed his Roman name, “Paul” to “Saul,” (which was Paul’s, Jewish name), and after Jesus died, when Paul moved to Rome, he went by “Paul” again. That’s also right before he was imprisoned and executed and where he’d write parts of the N.T.
I had to double-check everything, lol. That felt like the mendala effect. It turned out he also spent some time in the Bahamas dreaming about some guy named Yosef.
Saul (Sha’ul) is a Jewish/Hebrew name. Paulos is a Greek name. Even until now, bilingual people who are of a minority culture (compared to where they’re living) often have two names, one in their their native (family) language and one in the local majority language, one official, the other unofficial.
This was not limited to Paul, even in that immediate timeline. Levi (Jewish name) was also called Levi (Greek name). There’s no reason to believe Paul “changed” his name sheet his conversion. He continued to go by Saul after he became a Christian. He went by his Jewish name among Jewish people, then his Greek name when he travelled across Rome and interacted with Greek-speakers.
A Christian hunter? Before Christianity existed? What?
I think you’re getting your timeline mixed up. Paul converted to Christianity some time after Jesus died and quickly became a leader in the early church due to his prolific letter writing, with letters on all aspects of Christian life. Many of these letters (and a few that modern scholars believe are from people pretending to be Paul) ended up getting included into the New Testament as scripture because they were so popular and influential on early Christianity. However, these did not invent Christianity. All of these letters are to Christian communities that already existed in Paul’s own time, and a few of them mention how he used to persecute Christians because he was a hardcore Jew and thought they were corrupting Judaism.
All of the apostles saw Jesus. That’s what makes them apostles. I think your timeline is off. Paul was there after the crucifixion and witnessed the ascension. He was also a disciple, which means he followed Jesus when he was alive. (Judas is the only disciple who’s not an apostle)
“Jesus called him “Saul, Saul”[38] in “the Hebrew tongue” in the Acts of the Apostles, when he had the vision which led to his conversion on the road to Damascus.[39]”
They met on a road.
After Jesus died, he traveled to Rome to spread the word, where he was beheaded. I believe that’s also where Peter died by inverted crucifixion.
At least that’s the biblical canon.
This is a level of stupidity and confident wrongness that I haven’t seen in some time. I would say this is a ChatGPT disaster but even ChatGPT isn’t this stupid. The incident on the road to Damascus was a description of a vision after Jesus’s death. Neither Acts, nor any of the gospels mention Paul in the ascension story, and none of Paul’s letters mention him knowing Jesus during his earthly life, witnessing the crucifixion, or the ascension.
Read Acts and tell me where Paul is before Chapter 8.
https://www.bible.com/bible/2016/ACT.1.NRSV
What about a search in the Bible for “Saul?” Hmmm nothing in Acts or the Gospels before Acts 8? Fascinating.
What about a search for “Paul?”
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=paul&resultspp=250&version=NRSVUE
I mean, ultimately you’re both basically arguing over Star Wars about whether Han shot first or second. Its several non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story to push an agenda of control.
No, it’s more like arguing whether Han Solo was in the prequels or not. Easily verifiable to anyone who isn’t mentally challenged
You do realize the historicity of Paul is pretty robust and the common consensus amongst historians is Jesus was also a real person. Him being a real person doesn’t mean he was a Messiah or had magical powers. But just deciding that anyone who was involved with the foundation of a religion didn’t exist means you are founding your views on feelings instead of actual information.
That is not what they are saying. It is perfectly valid to say that there are zero contemporary primary sources to confirm the existence of Jesus. Historians have come to the consensus that he most likely existed, on account of the influence stemming from later sources, but they all also know there are no contemporary sources, so that consensus is based on circumstantial evidence.
The historicity of Paul is not robust, it is definitely better sourced than Jesus, but that historicity stems from himself, and as we cannot take his supernatural religous experiences for fact (he can very well have believed them as fact, but we know that they cannot have happened in objective reality like that), he is not exactly the most reliable witness in the first place.
As I said, non-fictional people tied together with a fictional story.
Deciding that I said one thing, when simply looking up and seeing I didn’t say it means you are founding your reply on feelings instead of actual information.
I know, it’s like they don’t know the lore?
I my experience, Christians don’t know their own Bible and rarely, if ever, crack it open without someone telling them to, usually during a service.
Nah, for real. He was also king of the jews. He was also called Al.
I always thought the timeline was really confusing. That was the narrative we were taught in church. He persecuted early followers.
“According to the Acts, Paul lived as a Pharisee and participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, possibly Hellenised diaspora Jews converted to Christianity,[12] in the area of Jerusalem, before his conversion.[note 1]”
you tend to do that when you and your buddies are up to street crime
What’s the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent meal of loaves and fishes?
taking multiple roman soldiers’ equipment a mile down the road, destruction of money lender property, theft of grain
The destruction of the money lenders property and the theft of grain were justified imo
as well as fucking with roman military logistics. i support all three of the things i listed
Not to mention destroying the local bread, fish, and wine economy.
Yubaba vibes
I’m imagining a Reservoir Dogs scene playing out about the names.
Someone on another mission trip is Acolyte Paul! I assign the names, otherwise we’d have a bunch of Jews dead from an argument over who gets to be Acolyte John. So, you are Acolyte Pink!
It worked on Muhammad Ali too
Even in the Bible they people with deadnames.
Like Ging did to Wdwune in HxH
