"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Postscript: Acknowledgements

I am very proud of this blog project with 6 posts worth of argumentative material, and it is dedicated to anyone who wants to read it, really. My Christian friends are very welcome to grace me with views and grace themselves with what I think is a strong argument that will hopefully strengthen the faith of someone who follows Jesus. My non-Christian friends are also invited to try to grasp, debate, refute, and consider what I have written and the logical outworks that a positive conclusion will have for our very lives. And of course, the same goes for any reader who I do not know, Christian or critical.

Now, I would like to acknowledge and thank these sources for their information, in the best order of importance that I can perceive. There were other scholars I was able to use, and they are definitely cited when their material showed up, but these four deserve to be accredited with more significance, apart from everything else.

J. Warner Wallace, former cold-case homicide detective who converted to Christianity because of the evidence. His book Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels was cited in my proto-type post written all the way back in January. Then, I also used his citations of the early church fathers in part 3. I remember that about a little over a year ago, I came across his discoveries in the Gospel of Mark and was very excited to have such material. Now, because of his work, I have been able to create this argument -- without his observations, the foundation would have been swiped away. 

J.P. Moreland, popular Christian apologist, for citing two other scholars who argue for Christianity: Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd. They collected a plethora of embarrassing testimony from the Gospel of Mark, which was vital for my large argument. And by using their examples, I was able to interpret other important pieces of evidence. 

William Lane Craig, leading Christian apologist. His observations of Mark's theologically and historically unembellished story of the empty tomb was used to present what I think is the best proof for the truth of the Gospel of Mark. 

Bart Ehrman, famous agnostic New Testament scholar. I do disagree with him on the conclusion that the historical Jesus is not the Jesus of the living Christian church, but his grand standing among unbelievers puts his tactics for determining what really happened in Jesus's life as a persuasive tool for Christians to use. His "brilliant," "witty, smart, and articulate" (2) citations I was able to use, along with other ones that are less glamorous, were very important to the case.  

Rice Broocks, Christian apologist. His little bit on Mark's authorship cited from Man Myth Messiah is the one that put in my head the idea of the unlikely attribution of the Gospel under the name of Mark, instead of Peter.

I pray that God will bless the people who payed attention to my hard work. Thanks for reading! 

Citations:

1. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2017), 722.