[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.
Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?
[/quote]
Exactly. Did you know that the Gospel According to Peter included an eye-witness account of the Resurrection? Did you know that Peter’s account was left out solely because he said that during Jesus’ torture, He ever appeared to be in pain? Because that fact somehow diminishes Jesus’ suffering for our sins?
There are verses from the apostles that contradict the words of God and Jesus, even outright defiance to the instructions given by Jesus Christ. Paul even says, in I Corinthians 19, that circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. And again, in 34-36, that it is OK to marry your daughter if she is past marriageable age and you just can’t help yourself.
So Paul trivializes obedience to God, yet the church follows his lead? [/quote]
I don’t think you read my (rather long) posts at the bottom of page 1, bro. You should - they point out exactly what the problems are with the nonsense you are spewing. But here we go again…
Here you have a big problem. You seem to think that the gospel of Peter is a credible document, and that it was only rejected because of a single anomaly (saying Jesus never appeared to be in pain). That is false. There were several other factors that contributed, even though the docetic influence of the text was clear. First of all, I don’t think you know anything about Docetism. Docetists had a problem with the TRADITIONAL church teaching that Jesus CHrist was fully God and fully human simultaneously; they thought the addition of a truly human nature would somehow show dishonor to God. Therefore, they argued that Jesus was NOT truly human, that his body was a mere apparition. Thus, they argued, Jesus did not truly experience any suffering, because God (in their view) was too special to suffer. Here’s the point - if Jesus didn’t experience pain, then yes, that fact DOES diminish his suffering. THERE IS NO SUFFERING WITHOUT PAIN.
Secondly, you are obviously reading from an English version of the gospel of Peter. The word translated “as” or “as if” doesn’t indicate a mere semblance of reality - i.e., Jesus only SEEMED to not be in pain - but rather an expansion of the main clause, and thus should be translated, “he did not cry out, having no pain.”
Thirdly, putting aside the obvious question of the dating of the gospel of Peter (which is so late that it COULDN’T HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY PETER), you actually think that it provides an accurate eyewitness account of Jesus’ death and resurrection? You know, it flat out contradicts the four gospels in several places? And that the supposed eyewitnesses to the event of Christ’s resurrection are the centurions and the Jewish elders? Where would Peter have gotten that information from, dude? And even if he did, why would the church hide it?! THAT IS THE EXACT HOLE IN THE JESUS STORY THAT EVERYONE WANTED FILLED! IF THE DOCUMENT WAS LEGITIMATE, the church would have jumped for joy to finally have an account from people who SAW JESUS’ GET RESURRECTED. The fact is that church authorities knew that the document was a forgery from the docetists; that’s why they rejected it. It had no more historical value or credibility than the gnostic forgeries.
Now as for your blatant misreading of 1 Corinthians, I want to make two points:
- 1 Corinthians only has 16 chapters in it, not 19.
- 7:34-36 is NOT talking about a man’s daughter. In the Greek, it refers to one’s virginal fiancee, NOT a man’s daughter. YOu need to get an accurate translation, or else learn to read Greek. Seriously. THe point is that, if a man has been betrothed a long time, and feels bad for waiting so long, he should marry the girl, since he has probably deprived her of other options in the interim. THAT is the point.
I’ve done both my undergraduate and graduate work in biblical studies, working in the original biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek). If you want to preach this crap, you are going to have to do a lot better than quoting outdated, inaccurate translations.