Is it or isn't it?

forensic science indicates that the supposed original version of the Gospel of Peter the Apostle was written in the third century after Christ. Its the only of the gospels (even though its not part of the canon), that supposedly eyewitnesses the ressurection.

Forensic evidence, objectively analyzed and interpreted isnt kind to Christian dogma.

You still don't understand. Naysayers are with belief.

Noted

Mea Culpa.

Carry on

Ack - I meant without, what a dumb typo!

Peter's Gospel?
Peters letters are included in all the earliest canons, including Clement of Alexandria, c. 190, and others before the end of the second century.

I am not familiar with the gospel of Peter. Many books are not part of the canon. From here I am not sure what would be your point.

In as much that all written texts have " a cause" we can say that " a God concept" is one cause of theological "scripture". However, the primary function of writing was as a societal control mechanism enabling standardization of records and edicts which transcended time and place. It is therefore more reasonable to argue that "God concepts" within writing were a secondary aspect of its control function providing a "devine authority" angle as a back up for man-made laws. The transcendence of time and place (omnipresence) of language in general, and writing in particular, became reifying attributes of the "God concept" rather than vice versa.

Oh

Things like that happen when you get old.

I forgot why

I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favor of scripture. Nobody has produced evidence that Jesus walked the Earth. I agree with Freud that humans created God in their own image. We are as castaways, adrift on this rock. We must take care of ourselves.

I have no arguments of mathematical certainty. Only anecdotal and circumstantial observations.

These likely are many of the same anecdotal and circumstantial observations shared by non believers.

My conclusions are different, however

Yeah, but is there internal consitency or no?

It seems that you're conflating the issue of the discrepancy between the human condition and John's statement that "God is love" with the issue that there should be reconciliation between the demanding Mosaic Law and the teachings of Jesus, unless you're implying that the imposition of the 613 mitzvot is unloving.

Also, to clarify your position, one that rejects, to certain extents, Mosaic Law, you should more fully quote those passages in Galatians that you base your stance on:

"Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

The Gospel of Peter the Aposatle was a "testimony" of Simon Peter. It was among the Gnostics found at Nag Hamadi.

The tesimony was of the Crucifixion and the Ressurection, but seen from a time after Mark's gospel.
"Stories get better as they age"

I don't reject the Mosaic Law. You have quoted Galatians 3: 23-25 which more fully explains my position regarding the purpose of the law.

The Torah often went beyond the law; one reason Jesus took issue with the Pharisees.

Many on this board refer to the human condition as a reason to reject the existence of God. I contend that the Bible's explanation is not only sufficient, but provides reliable guidance and hope.

Many books have been excluded from the canon. I don't know the reason for any in particular.

I have the belief that the True God would not only supervise the recording of his word, but would safeguard the preservation of it. Hence, the scriptures we have available today should be internally consistent and reliable.

Either they are, or they are not . . .

you know why several gospels are NOT included within the canon, they dont carry the "story" the way that mother church wanted it carried.

Book of Jubilee's , for example,carries the testimony that Christ lived through the crucifixion and was later married.

etc etc.
When we analyse the Nag Hamadi documents and discount them from the sacred literature I can understand the need to maintain, as you call it. "internal consistency".

Donations would plummet were it otherwise.

Wit is the brevity of soul.

Yet the 'mother church' squirms when confronted with scripture.

Thats because she affirms her existence from Timothy primarily and "tradition" is said to equal scripture, (thats wha Paul meant according to several Vatican councils)

As far as Evangelicals and "recent" fundamentalists, I dont know why they havent been quick to embrace Nag Hamadi , do you?

So then, by tying in the idea that "God is love" with your admonition that there should be a reconciliation betewen the demanding Mosaic Law and the teachings of Jesus, do you see Mosaic Law as unloving?