While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first thing to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved of note was from the upper crust of society (call it "top one percent"(ish)). All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power (or more likely, increase it). There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. You can only be convinced to ignore the connection (or misconstrue what it means). Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first thing to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved of note was from the upper crust of society (call it "top one percent"(ish)). All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power (or more likely, increase it). There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first thing to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved of note was from the upper crust of society (call it "top one percent"(ish)). All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first thing to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that; ignorant and voiceless. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class who had access to writings, had the training in how to read, and had the time to do so, all of which means wealth, station, and some level of power. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth and community power. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot of theologies in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same in the case of the development of Christianity (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out,. and giving a narrative overlay that matches with your design.

That is how the news is run today (on both sides). There is plenty of evidence that suggests that is how the world has always been run. Why assume it was any different then when the results were exactly the same (consolidation of power through control of beliefs).

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda from those who had power in the community.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY.

There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY. There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY. There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to keep power in what actually happened after the fact (see the Constantine Church). Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY. There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.

While it's true that there are numerous ancient texts beyond the 66 books of the Bible, the process of canonization involved careful consideration and theological scrutiny.

By the leaders of specific groups.

It's important to appreciate exactly who was doing the consideration and exactly which "theological scrutiny" was involved. There were a lot in competition at the time.

The first to appreciate, that almost no one does, is that everyone involved was "high born." All of the Christian leaders who are quoted were all born into wealth. This is a recurring theme in history, and one that is almost never considered. Information, schooling, etc., were not available to most people. They never have been. You had to born to the right class to have a voice at all. This is how it was in the Jewish community, and how it was in the Roman Empire. The plebeians were just that. They were controlled by the ruling class. The same is true of the leaders of the Christian community.

The decision to include certain books and exclude others was not solely driven by a desire for power and control.

Prove it. It is easy to show that everyone involved was born to the people who already had at least some level of power and control in the community. For those that have power, one of the common motivating factors for action taken is to keep power. There is plenty of evidence that the motivations were to have power in what actually happened after the fact. Why assume that what resulted wasn't also a part of the motivation?

Early Christian communities sought to preserve teachings consistent with Pauline tradition

FTFY. There were a metric fuckton of people (according to evidence) that were not in the Pauline camp. They were all killed, or silenced, or their books burned; called "heretics" or "gnostics" or whatever. This is the reality of how the "teachings were made consistent with tradition". The tradition was forced, by bloodshed, ad hominem, and propaganda.

The process of canonization aimed at preserving the core tenets of Christianity based on theological criteria of the victors.

FTFY

The exclusion of specific texts does not inherently invalidate the profound individual connection to God that many believers experience.

Perhaps this is because you cannot be disconnected from Source. It is impossible. Just because I think there was fuckery in the "Christianity" we got doesn't mean there is no truth in there. The best lies are built on the Truth. It is made a lie not by stating non-truths, but by leaving important things out.