Gospel of Peter is a Gnostic Work

Submitted by Servant of Christ (United States), Jan 14, 2007 at 14:31

The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. ( this is similar to that of the Qur'an.)

Now this is where we see some inconsistencies in your argument. The gospels/Injils that Muhammad would have been familiar with would've have been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those four were the well established Gospels of the time as well as the other Apostolic letters, Revelation, and the Book of Acts. Of course there were many other Gnostic works or 'Secret Gospels' such as Thomas AND Peter.

If you hold that the Gospel of Peter is true, that means you acknowledge that they saw a walking, talking cross. So let's not avoid the topic, if you accept the gospels, you must accept that Jesus is God. The four Gospels made it clear that Jesus DID die and not some illusion. The Qu'ran and the Gospels are irreconcilable.

And finally, it would make absolutely no sense for Peter to carry two Gospels with him (Mark and Peter). There is external evidence that Mark wrote Mark with the help of Peter but there is none that says Peter wrote Peter. A late date in the Gospel of Peter makes it false to say that Apostle Peter actually wrote the book.

May God Bless You

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".