Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

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"!!

I'll look. Hahaha, it seems to look ok from my end.

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.

Here's some more stuff:
The crucifixion takes place in Rome, not Jerusalem.
Joseph of Arimathea is said to be a personal friend of Pontius Pilate.
Jesus is “taken up” from the cross, and His death is not mentioned.
Two supernatural beings enter the tomb, and three emerge.
The cross is described as floating out of the tomb and saying “Yes” to a voice from heaven.
There is no mention of witnesses seeing Jesus alive after He was dragged out of the tomb.

Also, no one but no one thinks it's authentic. This would fall under scholarly consensus: believers and unbelievers alike think this is a forgery. I don't think you're advocating its authenticity, though.

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 traveling and disputing anything.

This is where I get most hung up. What about this theory is provable? You're looking back through time and telling me what people 2000 years ago thought without producing evidence, like a letters between Christians that affirm what you're saying. Why would I agree to this over just accepting what's written in the Bible? And I mean that as a real question, not a rhetorical challenge.

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.

There is so many assumptions weaved into what you say. This is the most cynical, skeptical, biased way to look at the development of the NT canon.

First, you and I have the benefit of 2000 years of study and debate to rely on. These people didn't. They were hashing out the fundamental truths that we take for granted. And there was a real attack on the church happening. Persecution by the state, theological perversion by the Gnostics, and opportunists profiting off of the early church were all real obstacles. You had people leaving pagan religions trying to reconcile their lives in light of Christ. There was a lot happening and the foundational beliefs had to be defended.

Second, you're painting a conspiracy here that texts were rejected purely for not agreeing with Paul. I reject the idea of Pauline Christianity. That's not an accurate way to say it. Paul didn't hijack Christianity. That's just not true. I can harmonize Paul, Peter, John, James, and the rest of the NT scholars no problem. In fact, the apostles were all working together. Peter references Paul. Luke talks about Paul. Paul references other apostles. This idea that Paul just happened to have the message that stuck is just simply not true. It's unfounded. His ministry was foundational to the church's growth, but he didn't hijack Christianity.

Third, I also reject this idea of Pauline Christianity as the canon dividing line. That's just not true. Yes, the message in the other writings was important, as was their theology, authorship, and authenticity. The exact same way any historian today would try to determine the truth an account of a historical event. He has to weigh all of those things to determine if an account is reliable. That's not odd or conspiratorial.

Fourth, because of the way that the NT was spread through multiple lines of independent transmission the idea that there was a governing body that decided what Christians could read was just not true. The canon of scripture was already being organically collected. By the mid 2nd century 22 of the 27 books of the NT were considered the core writings, way before Laodicea.

This is secular scholarship 101 and it's not based on any evidence that Christian scholarship isn't looking at. There are two ways to view the same information. Worldview matters.

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.

Well, you have yet to demonstrate that my initial claim is false... sooooooooo?
Oh, no. No, no, no. Haha. I don't accept an atheist's appeal to logic. We don't have to hash that out, but I also won't just let you start appealing to transcendent, immaterial standards of truth. You don't get to appeal to logic unless you can justify it.

Let's not go there. I've spent way too much time with Statler Waldorf debating stupid tiny details.

An exercise in futility lol