• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Even “the bible” isn’t “the bible”.

    “Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament, however, while Catholic Bibles have 46.” source

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Neither of these mention St Peter at the pearly gates, though. The biggest addition the Apocrypha makes is a record of someone praying for the dead. Protestants generally still do recognise the Apocrypha, but just as historical records and not authoritative, hence not a part of the Bible.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        In Matthew 16 Jesus gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and in Revelation the new Jerusalem has pearls for gates. That’s where it comes from.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The pearly gates are biblical. I think the keys are taken a bit literally. But that’s interesting to think about, actually

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Nope. Lots of stuff commonly believed by Christians isn’t from the Bible. (Though sometimes they’ll do a lot of mental gymnastics to assert that what they believe is from “the only reasonable interpretation” of the Bible.)

    Just a few other things commonly believed by Christians not (or at least only dubiously) from the Bible:

    • The seven deadly sins
    • The nine circles of hell
    • The seven levels of heaven
    • Transubstantiation
    • The trinity
    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Transubstantiation is kind of in the Bible. Matthew 26:26-28

      While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

      Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

      The discussion of transubstantiation is just how literal “my body/blood” is.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Transubstantiation is the doctrine that it ceases being bread and wine. Which St Paul kind of debunks in his first letter to the Corinthians at Chapter 11, where he refers to it as bread.

        “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

        What you’re talking about is consubstantiation, which is where the body and blood physically coexist in the bread and wine, which can be derived from the Bible.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That humans eventually become angels.

      Though, there was one human who did, in an apocryphal book. And then was elevated yet again to being a second diety; there were apparently strains of Christianity which were DUOtheistic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Matthew 20:30

        “At resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”

        I think that’s where the sentiment comes from. It’s explicit in Mormonism (I think). In mainstream Christianity the saved don’t become angels, they become like angels.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          … they become like angels.

          In the sense that they no longer have sexual or romantic urges, would be my reading of that passage. Angels have no belly buttons!

          • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yes that’s the context - Jesus saying no one will be married in heaven. Either angels are asexual or they’re all male. The latter is a little more likely given all angels in the bible are presented as male. Which if that’s the case has weird implications for what female Christians become when they’re resurrected. Some weird male equivalent? So now we’re “all like the angels”?

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The sentiment is there though…

        2 Thessalonians 3:10 “While we were with you, this we commanded you: If someone won’t work, then neither shall they eat”

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible. Sure, not in explicit Athanasius creed form, but Jesus even said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

      Notice how “Name” is singular, implying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one thing, or at least equal. Jesus is referred to as God, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are also. And it’s made clear that there is one God. The Athanasius Creed is just the Trinity clearly defined in a single text. Clarifying interpretation (like the Nicene Creed).

      Seven deadly sins are based off of various sins listed in the Bible, but most of it has kind of been overhyped and overemphasized. It’s useful for giving a rough idea of what sin is, but it’s been meddled with over time.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Minimize it all you like, but no one ever started a bloody war over “Encounter at Hotpoint”. Yes, all human culture is alike in some ways. Very clever observation. I think you will find that most of the people engaged in this discussion are not even Christian. It’s still significant and meaningful, if not to us personally, to the world we exist in.

          This is one of the more interesting, informative and respectful discussions I have seen in a few days. Why shit on it. The age of edgy Internet atheism has passed. It’s okay just to BE an atheist now. No one is coming for you. You can stop fighting.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 hours ago

    So, Peter at the gates comes from a more or less literal interpretation from the passage where Jesus was making Peter the first pope. “To you I hand the keys to the kingdom of heaven….”

    What Jesus was saying is that Peter got to decide who was in the Blood Ritual Cannibal Club,

    Keep in mind, the books were written well after Jesus died, and the scriptures weren’t canonized until 300 years later; at the council of Nicaea- which was called specifically to “unify” the church. A lot of the choices about what was canon or not was specifically made to protect the bulk of the bishop’s authority (by drawing a straight lineage of succession from Peter.)

  • bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Most Christian think of it like a cartoon. At least from what I can tell. Nobody actually seems to believe Peter is at the gates, but it is sometimes fun/useful to pretend that is what happens instead of trying to figure out what the judgement day really means (we often think of that like a court room with God as the judge and jury, but the scripture is not clear and so it isn’t really any more correct that Peter at the gates)

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Can’t speak for Catholics but most reformed protestants (evangelicals) will be being taught their sins are already washed away and any judgement for the ‘saved’ after death is only about their quality of walk with god and quality of reward in heaven, it’s not a heaven/hell judgment. That’s only for the ‘unsaved’.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Fascinating. Classism, in heaven. Work yourself to death so that you can enjoy a better neighbourhood of heaven than your neighbour.

        • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”

          However it’s obtained it’s something very hard for the well resourced and powerful to do. Jesus anticipated it’s the “very least” in this life who have the capacity to be recognised as “first” in the Kingdom.

        • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Mormons have three tiers of heaven. According to some, even Hitler would make it into the lowest tier. I’m not sure what you’d have to do to actually go to hell, which is supposedly just lonely infinite darkness away from the presence of God.

          • jerkface@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            hell, which is supposedly just lonely infinite darkness away from the presence of God

            So, “days ending in a Y”

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    St Peter doesn’t judge you! He’s always depicted with a book that already contains the judgements. He has no real authority, he’s just the gatekeeper.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I wonder if enough technicians go to heaven could the pearly gates can be automated so St Peter can finally retire.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It comes from Matthew 16

      15 “But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”

      16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

      17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

      [end quote]

      So, yes, authority given to St Peter to “bind and loose” in heaven and on earth. How that’s supposed to work alongside it being Jesus separating the sheep from the goats is anyone’s guess.

      The reason this takes place at the “pearly gates” is because the new Jerusalem descending from heaven in Revelation is described as having giant pearls for gates.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Matthew 19:28

      Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

      [end quote]

      Whether “12 tribes of Israel” here is figurative of the global church or not, there still definitely some role in judgement delegated out to the apostles.

  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Aren’t you staying dead for millenia until the second comming and the judgement day ? To my understanding the reason why Christian burry their dead rather than burning them is that they need to resurrect on jugement day

      • gramie@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There was a time, not that long ago, when cremation was not an option for Catholics. At some point, the church changed its mind. Maybe in the seventies or eighties?

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s very interesting. I’ve never heard about that. I’ll take a dig sometime soon. An example of dogma changing to suit practical needs. Would be good to know the conditions that are necessary for that to happen.