The Gospel of Peter versus the Gospel of Matthew.

[Amarok]

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

[Godscreated]

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

No, he said he didn't want a theologian's opinion.  Weren't you reading what he wrote?

Seems I understood it far better than you did, I was pointing out he wanted a biased opinion that supported his thinking, he will accept anything that's not true or haven't you seen through him yet.

GC

---

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

GC

She's not some wacky fundamentalist Christian.

 I was speaking of Min and his need for biased opinion that supports his thinking.

GC

---

You want someone who has a vested interest in denying the truth.

  You got that right and I've never denied it either.

  GC

[Amarok]

 You got that right and I've never denied it either.

So you admit to having vested interest in denying the truth ?

[Jehanne]

GC,

You still haven't addressed the question as to why the Gospel of Matthew is to be trusted but not the Gospel of Peter.

[Amarok]

GC,

You still haven't addressed the question as to why the Gospel of Matthew is to be trusted but not the Gospel of Peter.

Because the answer is there is no answer

[robvalue]

If God talks to me now, can I write a gospel? Will it become canon, or does that depend on the opinion of some group of flawed humans?

[Jehanne]

If God talks to me now, can I write a gospel? Will it become canon, or does that depend on the opinion of some group of flawed humans?

Just be sure to accept PayPal.

[Angrboda]

No, he said he didn't want a theologian's opinion.  Weren't you reading what he wrote?

Seems I understood it far better than you did, I was pointing out he wanted a biased opinion that supported his thinking, he will accept anything that's not true or haven't you seen through him yet.

Seems not, as I was making a joke at your expense. But by all means, keep on believing.

[Minimalist]

please bruh.. we have 15 of the 27 books represented in this so call "few second century fragments"

No, you don't fuckhead.  The 4 earliest scraps ( actually 5 since 64 and 67 always seem to be combined) all date from the mid to late second century and have been read by people who, unlike you, know what the fuck they are talking about.

#4 dates from the 2d to the third century ( I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one ) contains a handful of excerpts from "Luke."

#52 dates close to the end of the 2d century.  It is a credit card sized fragment which contains 114 recognizable letters and they are all from "John."

#64 ( and the erstwhile #67 which seems to have been part of the same page hence the combination ) are supposedly of "Matthew."

#30 is a couple of sections of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.  It is usually considered 3d century but the earliest possible dates bleed over into the 2d so I am giving you that one too...just to show that atheists can be charitable!  So add "Paul" to the list.

#90 is a small fragment of John but John is already on the list so that doesn't help your total, does it?

So I get 4 books from the NT not 15 and all dated to the late 2d ( at best ) century and since no one is arguing that there weren't xhristards in the late 2d century that doesn't help you either, does it?  There were plenty of people alive at the time who believed in Mithras, Isis, Zeus and Jupiter.  You would be the first to say that they were wrong.
Well, asshole.  You are wrong too.  Your fucking god is no more real than theirs.

[robvalue]

If God talks to me now, can I write a gospel? Will it become canon, or does that depend on the opinion of some group of flawed humans?

It's funny how God is so inactive now that not even Christians would believe me if I said God was telling me to write a new gospel.