You still have some way to go on that quote thing. Maybe you have some hanging "+quote" in your cache? I avoid that button "like the plague"!!
From the wiki article on the Gospel of Peter:
"A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. "
Not a major difference, but a difference. I wouldn't say it "tells a very, very different story". It may have a different political charge to it, though.
In court, witness reports are often trumped by any hard evidence. It is well known that witnesses are not very reliable, even if they are convinced that they are actually reporting their unbiased perspective over some event that they did witness.
I never said it was a clerical conspiracy, did I? I said that one version of events became dominant. Why, how and where it became dominant are very important questions for which we may never have decent answers.
One can offer some educated guesses, though. Here's mine:
Paul of Tarsus, present day Turkey, returns from his travels in Israel and starts preaching his version of Christianity. That version appeals to the poor and downtrodden and so it grows in popularity among the lower classes - in the region that would become called Eastern Roman Empire, mostly present-day Turkey and Greece. With all the commerce going on around the Mediterranean, these popular ideas were passed to other shores, such as Corinth (Greece), Thessalonica (Greece), Colossae (Turkey), Ephesus (Greece), Galatia (Turkey), and Rome... See the pattern? ... I see the absence of the place of origin of the story.
With the region of Rome, Greece and Turkey littered with Paul's version of Christianity, the clergy that follow Christianity in this region will obviously follow Paul's version. They became numerous and influential up to the point when even the emperor, Constantine, is himself Christian a mere 200-ish years later.
"Oh, but there were eye-witnesses from Jerusalem at the same time", you may say, "those could disprove Paul's version easily, but didn't, proving that this was an accurate account". But those people would have been in the wrong place, so they would have had little to no say in it. And before you say it, they'd also be too old to be travelling and disputing anything.
The gospels and others texts that were in line with Paul's already dominant version would then be incorporated into canon. The texts that weren't in line with it, were discarded as apocryphal. And the rest, is history.
So you now believe something that may or may very well not be an accurate account of events.
That the collection in the bible gives you texts that agree with each other is merely by construct, not because those were the only stories circulating, nor that they were the more accurate portrayals of what really happened.
And, yet, you're a creationist.
Can you understand that, from my point of view, your indoctrination must have heavily informed all these challenges that you went through?
With the extra benefit of your belief coming out even stronger.
I'm cool with this. I think, if there is a god, science will find it at some point. No faith required. Just empirical evidence that an entity such as a god exists in some state.
I doubt that will ever happen, but it is a possibility.
I see how it comes about. It makes total sense.
As with all logical arguments that result in the wrong conclusion, it fails at the start. But you do you.
Let's not go there. I've spent way too much time with Statler Waldorf debating stupid tiny details.
(October 8, 2021 at 12:05 pm)ayost Wrote: The Gospel of Peter is a very short gospel, probably from 150 AD, although we don't have anything prior to the 8th/9th century. The Gospel of Peter tells a very, very different story that the other gospels. So yes, it didn't make the cut because it isn't consistent with the story told by the other gospel writers. Is that that crazy? Does that make it a clergy conspiracy? I think that's a pretty far leap. In court, don't they frequently hear multiple versions of the same story and when one witness is totally different that the other witnesses we say that probably isn't a reliable witness? I would say that's reasonable and not necessarily a conspiracy.
From the wiki article on the Gospel of Peter:
"A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. "
Not a major difference, but a difference. I wouldn't say it "tells a very, very different story". It may have a different political charge to it, though.
In court, witness reports are often trumped by any hard evidence. It is well known that witnesses are not very reliable, even if they are convinced that they are actually reporting their unbiased perspective over some event that they did witness.
I never said it was a clerical conspiracy, did I? I said that one version of events became dominant. Why, how and where it became dominant are very important questions for which we may never have decent answers.
One can offer some educated guesses, though. Here's mine:
Paul of Tarsus, present day Turkey, returns from his travels in Israel and starts preaching his version of Christianity. That version appeals to the poor and downtrodden and so it grows in popularity among the lower classes - in the region that would become called Eastern Roman Empire, mostly present-day Turkey and Greece. With all the commerce going on around the Mediterranean, these popular ideas were passed to other shores, such as Corinth (Greece), Thessalonica (Greece), Colossae (Turkey), Ephesus (Greece), Galatia (Turkey), and Rome... See the pattern? ... I see the absence of the place of origin of the story.
With the region of Rome, Greece and Turkey littered with Paul's version of Christianity, the clergy that follow Christianity in this region will obviously follow Paul's version. They became numerous and influential up to the point when even the emperor, Constantine, is himself Christian a mere 200-ish years later.
"Oh, but there were eye-witnesses from Jerusalem at the same time", you may say, "those could disprove Paul's version easily, but didn't, proving that this was an accurate account". But those people would have been in the wrong place, so they would have had little to no say in it. And before you say it, they'd also be too old to be travelling and disputing anything.
The gospels and others texts that were in line with Paul's already dominant version would then be incorporated into canon. The texts that weren't in line with it, were discarded as apocryphal. And the rest, is history.
So you now believe something that may or may very well not be an accurate account of events.
That the collection in the bible gives you texts that agree with each other is merely by construct, not because those were the only stories circulating, nor that they were the more accurate portrayals of what really happened.
(October 8, 2021 at 12:05 pm)ayost Wrote: I wish we could move past statements like blind faith and indoctrination. I think at a minimum I have established that I've thought these things out as an adult. I don't consider myself to have blind faith. I am someone who researches and reads and learns. I'm frequently challenged and then go away and learn. I think I can make a reasonable, not airtight, but reasonable case for everything I believe.
And, yet, you're a creationist.
Can you understand that, from my point of view, your indoctrination must have heavily informed all these challenges that you went through?
With the extra benefit of your belief coming out even stronger.
(October 8, 2021 at 12:05 pm)ayost Wrote: I'm not asserting that my faith means something is true in the way you want it to be certainly true. Faith means I'm trusting God to do what he said based on evidence x, y, and z while acknowledging that x, y, and z aren't indisputable proof.
I would also argue that science eventually leads to the same place of faith. That statement could send us on a rabbit trail. I won't pursue it unless you do, haha.
I'm cool with this. I think, if there is a god, science will find it at some point. No faith required. Just empirical evidence that an entity such as a god exists in some state.
I doubt that will ever happen, but it is a possibility.
(October 8, 2021 at 12:05 pm)ayost Wrote: Well, this is where faith comes in, but also it's also thought out faith:
I am convinced that the NT is authentic, reliable, and true.
I am convinced that what the NT says about Jesus and who He is is true (the God/man).
Jesus believed the OT writers and that God created the universe.
Therefore, I believe what Jesus believed: the OT.
You see how it's not blind? How one thing builds on another?
I see how it comes about. It makes total sense.
As with all logical arguments that result in the wrong conclusion, it fails at the start. But you do you.
(October 8, 2021 at 12:05 pm)ayost Wrote: Now, when it comes to creation, I can level critiques at science and challenge how they know what they know. No one escapes the skeptic buzzsaw. haha
Let's not go there. I've spent way too much time with Statler Waldorf debating stupid tiny details.
