Church schisms

[Chenier]

Yeah, but I didn't say she was Pope, now did I. She was the prophet. A second coming of a religious figure (basically) worshiped. It might seem contrived, but there was this one time a jewish carpenter ran afoul with his church and then some crazy stuff happened. I don't think he ever even helped run it.

Yea, and did he go declare himself head of judaism?

I seem to recall him still not being recognized as being of any importance to judaism still today. What happened is a bunch of people started a new church in his devotion instead. You know, like Jonsu should have done?

[De-Legro]

Yea, and did he go declare himself head of judaism?

I seem to recall him still not being recognized as being of any importance to judaism still today. What happened is a bunch of people started a new church in his devotion instead. You know, like Jonsu should have done?

Indeed, Jesus is by and large regarded as a False Messiah and is not the only one in history. Several actions of Jesus according to the Christian Tradition pretty much exclude Jesus from being recognised as a prophet either. While a Jewish Sect related to Jesus did start, the end result was a new religion, not the reformation of Judaism. The most generous view of Jesus that I know of is some give him the title of Rabbi.

If you want to go further, it is a constant debate about what Jesus goals were. Many would suggest he never worked to create a new religion himself. Obviously he wanted changes to the Jewish Status Quo but it seems unlikely he wanted to "control" the church. Its not even particularly clear if he considered himself a prophet or a teacher.

Mohammed might have been a better reference to demonstrate your point.

[Buffalkill]

Yea, and did he go declare himself head of judaism?

My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

[Chenier]

My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

It would kind of go against the preachings of peace and humility to go prancing around about being the true King. If he was called that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't by himself.

[Gustav Kuriga]

My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

[De-Legro]

My bible study's a little rusty but isn't that supposedly why they crucified him, for calling himself King of the Jews?

That was a charge the Jewish Pharisees used when they brought him before the Roman authorities. Jesus's answer was vague, basically amounting to "so you say". The supposed reason they were able to bring this charge against him was some of his followers were already declaring him to be the Messiah.

He was also supposedly charged with preventing the payment of tax to Caesar and inciting the nation.

In the Gospel of John his does indeed confirm his kingship, however he qualifies that his kingdom is not of this world, and thus supposedly should not have been a problem with conflict between him being a King and Caesar.

Anyway Pilate finds no fault with Jesus but for some inexplicable reason leaves his fate to the crowd, who choose to free Barabbas and shout that Jesus should be crucified.

People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

There is some truth to this, in so far as they made some Gospels canonical while condemning other texts of early Christian groups. However they didn't have these Gospels written for that express purpose more these were the text upon which they agreed. It is fair to say that any process of Canonisation will be influenced by politics.

While Constantine did wish for a unified church, there is less evidence that he had much to do with development of the cannon. It is unknown what books the 50 bible he commission for the Bishop of Constantinople contained. The process of cannonsiation had been ongoing for centuries before the First Council of Nicaea, and there is no record of the council discussing the issue at all.

the Muratorian fragment is the earliest known list of of books contained in the new testament. The fragment itself is 7th century in origin, but makes reference to being a translation of a Greek original. The date of the Original Greek text is generally agreed to be from 170 though the exact date is debated and the fragmentary nature of the Latin text complicates matters.

[Buffalkill]

It would kind of go against the preachings of peace and humility to go prancing around about being the true King. If he was called that, I'm pretty sure it wasn't by himself.

Well since you're the first person in history to find inconsistency with religious teachings, I guess that makes you either a heretic or a prophet. But whether he gave himself the title or others bestowed it on him doesn't matter. He was a heretic who became the figurehead of a religious order.

People should avoid using the new testament of the bible without outside supporting evidence when looking for the historical basis of the events. Everything that was included in there was agreed upon by leading Bishops and Emperor Constantine purely for political expedience. They wished to ensure that the christian religion was as homogeneous as possible so that the Roman Empire would not fracture apart into factions of religious infighting. That's the reason there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

Why didn't anyone think of that before? Could've cleared up a lot of disagreements over the last 2 millenia. Seriously, I don't think the debate here is about history so much as it's about what's believable in the context of a medieval fantasy world. Someone on here earlier said that a heretic becoming the pope is totally implausible, but you only need to think about that statement for a few seconds, and know a little bit about any major religion, to see that it's a totally baseless argument.

[Buffalkill]

That was a charge the Jewish Pharisees used when they brought him before the Roman authorities.

Yes, that what the charge. I'm not arguing whether or not he got a fair trial. I was responding to somebody else's critique of somebody's else's analogy about the origins of Christianity. I should've known that it would turn into a wild sunday school tangent. I guess the simple point I was trying to make is that what happened here in the game, i.e. a religious order being taken over by an obscure revolutionary usurper, is not as outlandish as some here would argue. I think something similar happened early on in the Muslim religion, and probably in every religion with more than triple-digits.

[Gustav Kuriga]

It's only an important distinction if SA is supposed to mirror Christianity exactly. Somebody else said that basically it was unimaginable that an obscure heretic could become the equivalent of the pope, and I was simply pointing out that that's a bollocks argument. It's perfectly believable in the context of a medieval religion.

For those of you who are still not getting Buffalkill's point (which I agree with), it is basically this: one man's heretic is another man's messiah.

[De-Legro]

Pope Honorius I was declared Anathema after his death, does that count?

[Daycryn]

Jesus didn't overnight become head of the whole Jewish religion and all temples and followers and gained the ability to wield ultimate power over anyone who opposed him. Minor detail, I'm sure.  Jonsu's totally like Jesus otherwise. Both names start with the letter J!

[De-Legro]

Did you seriously ask this and not realize it proves how absurd the current situation is? If we accept the story, Jesus was executed for challenging the authority of the Roman state and the Jewish religeon. Believe me if the game mechanics supported executing Jonsu it would have been done the day after this all started.

The rise of Christianity is a terrible analogy. Notice how there are still synagogs in the world? Christianity is a religion that branched off from Judaism and eventually grew larger and more influential. It did not usurped and replaced Judaism.

What happened in SA is the equivalent of the ranking Pharasee declaring Peter the new head of the Jewish Faith and every single temple and synagog going along with it in spite of protests from every single other Pharasee and Rabbi in the entire religion.

If Jonsu had gone out and founded a new sect and it gained traction that would be perfectly legitimate but she didn't. She tried and failed twice because no one wanted to follow her because it was obvious to just about everyone she was a sociopath who only wanted power and would say or do anything to get it.

It's patently absurd to think she would have any authority in the church when the entire clergy and noble membership is dead set against her.

Well that depends, first was he already a convicted heretic? Second did the previous pope just declare him pope or was he elected by the Cardinals?

he favoured Monothelitism, though never made a decree that institutionalised it. When that doctrine was later declared heretical he was  anathematised along with them. From my reading originally it was because he followed them in the faith. However it would appear that later debates about the infallibility of the Pope he was instead said to be anathematised not for following that belief himself, but for allowing the teaching to persist along side the orthodox view.

In Theory at that time the Pope was not declared by the cardinals, but a gathering of the clergy and sons of the Church (noblemen) and it then was ratified by the Byzantine Emperor. The current system had it roots in the 13th century.

[pcw27]

In Theory at that time the Pope was not declared by the cardinals, but a gathering of the clergy and sons of the Church (noblemen) and it then was ratified by the Byzantine Emperor. The current system had it roots in the 13th century.

Close enough.

[Qyasogk]

Even today, in the debate about whether Gays and Lesbians can be priests. If the main church votes to allow that, but the local priest does not, they will break their church away from the main church and form their own splinter group.

If everyone thinks its fine for someone who was excommunicated from the faith, to be able to be the head of that faith with none of the power structures available to SA able to block or undo this action in any way, then Priests should be able to protest by removing their temples from the influence and control of the main religion.

[Chenier]

Even today, in the debate about whether Gays and Lesbians can be priests. If the main church votes to allow that, but the local priest does not, they will break their church away from the main church and form their own splinter group.

If everyone thinks its fine for someone who was excommunicated from the faith, to be able to be the head of that faith with none of the power structures available to SA able to block or undo this action in any way, then Priests should be able to protest by removing their temples from the influence and control of the main religion.

That must be why there are thousands of catholic churches splitting off every year to be their own independant protestant church.

Oh wait...