Okay, so they're considering Peter calling Isa (AS) to be Christ to possibly not be true, but what about Paul? That's the one they should _really_ mention. And what good does this acknowledgement do anyway when they have to hide their embarassment by making accpted facts like the Virgin Birth questionable as well. They speak of the resurrection of Christ (AS) as doubtful, so they are progressing, yet they also put in question the 10 commandments. This is as two-faced a document as any I've ever come across. Totally inclusive, and useful only as a rhetorical subject.