Minimalist

So it's the literal word of god until it is too embarrassing for xtians to stomach and then it becomes corrupted?

How convenient.

Juststeve

Minimalist:

Do you know of Christians who regard books outside the canon, such as the Gospel of Peter to be the literal word of god? If not it seems inappropriate to accuse them of "convenient" reasoning.

Steve

aeebee50

Must be from the Lovecraft people. I have not heard of a talking cross, but now I have.

Toto

Goodacre is not a literalist or a fundamentalists. The orthodox and the fundamentalists have already branded the Gospel of Peter as not authoritative.

aa5874

Mark Goodrich is not offering a solution he is MERELY speculating and can be engaged in false dichotomies.

Mark Goodrich simply REFUSES to accept the story as it is found and thinks that the writer must have made a mistake when the Gospel of Peter may not even be an historical account.

Why must Mark Goodrich think that the Gospel of Peter is history?

Why can't an ancient writer INVENT a story about a walking cross?

Minimalist

I don't consider any of that crap "authoritative" but it strikes me as just a guy trying to get his holy fantasies out of trouble.

Toto

:huh:

He's got an ancient manuscript that is not holy to any modern Christian or any other person. He does not worship it. He's just trying to figure out how it originally read. That is his job.

Toto

No one thinks that the Gospel of Peter is historical.

This is not about history. Any story that has either a walking talking cross or angels that come down and revive Jesus from the tomb is not historical.

The only question is whether it is a bizarre story that doesn't make a lot of sense, or is it a different story that clearly never happened, but still makes some sense as a story.

aa5874

It is simply not logical that "no one thinks the Gospel of Peter is history". If no-one thinks the Gospel of Peter was history then what does it matter if the story is bizarre?

Why does a story have to make sense to people in the 21st century that was written in antiquity?

Does Marcion's Phantom without birth and flesh make sense?

Speculations are NOT solutions and without any source of antiquity to support Mark Goodrich then his claims are unsubstantiated.

The Gospel of Peter must be left exactly as it is found since it may represent EXACTLY what people of antiquity BELIEVED.

It may be that people of antiquity BELIEVED crosses could walk. Christians BELIEVED the BIZARRE story from Marcion about the Phantom.

Sheshbazzar

A talking cross, or a giangantic Jebus coming out of a cave.... either one is just plain fucking stupid.
Make the proposed 'correction' and the story is still just as plain fucking stupid.