Do you know why the "gospel" of Peter wasn't included in the canon?

Question

I know why. I just want to see if other people know.
Second question, have you ever read it?

Actually, I should say what was probably one of the BIGGEST reasons it was considered to not be reliable.

I will be posting MY opinion of why it REALLY wasn't included shortly, once I have more answers.
And no, it's not because he said something that the Church didn't "like."

You can read the "gospel" of Peter here:
http://gospels.net/translations/akhmimpetertranslation.html

There were several reasons that the "gospel" of Peter isn't included in the canon:
1. It was written 150-200 years after the death of Peter, which means it was written nearly 250 years after the life and death of Christ. After twenty to sixty years, the reliablility of manuscripts is HIGHLY in question.
2. It contains things that are irrational. For example, a walking and talking cross. (I'm not kidding about this!)
3. Its teachings are not entirely consistent with the Gospels which were composed at an earlier date. Actually, it's more consistent with Gnostic teachings.

There are more, but those are the three main reasons.

Answer 1

Interesting, here are some things I noticed about it:
According to Peter,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. Oddly enough, this is the version seen in the Qur'an.

It also exonerates Pilate from alll responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. The villians of the piece throughout are 'the Jews' - more particularly, the chief priests and the scribes. It is they who condemn Jesus to death and abuse him; it is they who crucify him and share out his clothes among themselves.

It also, for the most part, seems to be drawn from Jewish scriptures, showing no knowledge of the special material distinctive to each of the four gospels now in the New Testament. In short, it appears to be written by drawing on old scriptures, and not first hand experience.

Answer 2

That's no longer actual in any respect. The Council of Nicea observed the Nicean Creed and declared Aranism a heresy. The payment of the biblical canon for the Catholic Church was once nonetheless a century off. However, it's actual that Eusibius, Constantine's biographer and early Church historian, first started circulating a record of what he regarded to be motivated texts as opposed to what he inspiration weren't even as the bishops had been accumulated for the council. Other bishops began circulating their possess lists, and the controversy raged, however by the point of St. Jerome, and his translation of scriptures into the Latin Vulgate bible within the early 5th century, the controversy was once lovely good settled. While it isn't as foolish as tossing scripture into the air, it isn't precisely an exalted, holy spirit ordained approach both.

Answer 3

I've never heard of a Gospel of Peter, but Peter's Letters are in the bible as well as his works (located in Acts of the Apostles).

Answer 4

Yes, I have heard that as well..but I would not trust those History Channel specials about the "banned books of the Bible" series, they have those on about every other month, they are not as well researched as they look to be.

Answer 5

I have never heard about this, so I will be watching for your explanation. Curious.

Answer 6

Probably because he said something that the Catholics didn't like.

Answer 7

I don't know.