(October 8, 2018 at 2:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 1:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I don't think that the Gospels or Paul constitute "evidence". I've asked you about this before, as to why I should accept the Gospel of Matthew but not the Gospel of Peter?
I've answered before. I think that we both agree, that it was written late. It's not even considered among those closest to the accounts of Jesus in the Early Church. Our earliest references to it (~200 AD); are condemning it as a forgery not from Peter, suggest not to read it to congregations and that it contains Docetism which did not fit with what they heard from the apostles. If my memory is correct, then we had very little knowledge of it, because a copy was not found until quite recently of which the earliest copy is ~ 8 - 9th century.
Do you have reason that you think it should be accepted?
The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:
Early Christian Writings
Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.
