Peter didn't understand Jesus, so it would stand to reason that he had a hard time with Paul's writings. I have no reason to believe that what Peter said was inspired just as I don't believe when Paul wrote: "I say....".
According to your following statement, you would fit into one of the categories.
And you don't? What does "done away" mean to you?
Take that up with Paul. He wrote it and, of course, He was inspired, I hope you at least can agree on that. Keep them all you want, but they cannot give eternal life. All they could do is condemn when they were broken thus they were the ministration of death.
Oh! so should Gal 5 be removed from scripture? Gal 5 listed some of the etc that you mentioned that are not included in the now-defunct 10 commandments.
Jesus fulfilled the Law, all of it including the 4th commandment of the defunct 10. The new covenant laws are all about loving others as Jesus loves us. That includes laying down our lives for others. That command in its self supersedes any of the 10.
So???? Paul kept the feast days, does that make it necessary for Christians?
Why wouldn't those under that covenant not understand that the 10 were part of the Law they were under? The New Covenant isn't about the same things as was the old one. In all of New Testament scripture, we will not find one place where there is a ten before commandments and assuming such is adding to the meaning of scripture. That becomes very plain when we read 1Jn3:19-24. It doesn't mention the keeping of days, weeks months or years. It is about eternal life for all mankind. According to John, it is all about believing and love. The old one was about how the Israelites were to live in the desert and then in the land of Canaan. See Ex19:5-6.
I am sorry it has become such a strain on your brain.
I'm not any more anxious to fixate upon the coupling of words such as "done" and "away" than I am of "ten" and "commandments." I'm not looking for a scrumptious buffet item. I'm trying to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Perhaps that seems clichéd to some, but it is a rather unambiguous command of the Lord.
A tenacious obsession with shiny parts of 2 Corinthians, Ch. 3 does not a convincing argument make. The chapter is not about the nullification of the ten (there's that word again--conspicuous by its absence here but ironically exempt from the hermeneutic stronghold in this case) commandments, but of their inability to atone for their violation.
Whatever "done away" does mean, it is clear that that which was "done away" was glorious (2 Corinthians 3:7-11) and was part of a perfect whole (1 Corinthians 13:10). It appears that the language used is for the purpose of contrast (good/better, like the theme of the book of Hebrews) and not polar opposition (trash/treasure).
As far as judging inspiration by selected phrases such as "I say...," that is a rabbit hole the depths of which I will never be found plumbing. Therefore your regrets regarding my mental health are, I assure you, misplaced. However, I do find much of your attempted, hardly-clever wordsmithing teetering between amusing and obnoxious and, in any case, combative and lacking in Christian charity.
I did not suggest jettisoning "Gal 5" and I suspect that you fully well know that.
We obviously do not agree on the inspiration of the writings of Paul, as indicated plainly in your "I say..." quid pro quo. His keeping of feast days would not constitute a positive command for other Christians to do so unless we're eager to cite some other scripture out of context.
Christ gives no positive command for Christians to lay down their lives for others. Again, more hardly-clever wordsmithing. No doubt, you will cite 1 John 3:16 here but, please note, this is not a "commandment," and in keeping with your school of inspiration/interpretation, how can we be certain that the Beloved Disciple is not here merely expressing his own opinion? Or was he exempt from ever misunderstanding Christ's words, unlike (according, it seems, to the reckoning of some) poor Peter--Apostle, Second-Class. A tangled web, to be sure.
To be clear, my purpose here is not to dispute or convince you of error, but merely to attempt to counter your influence on those who might be sincerely searching for truth. I bear you no ill will, but you do seem firmly entrenched in your error and openly hostile to those who oppose your antinomianist views, and I have no problem with acknowledging that, whatever your reaction. I am not intimidated whatsoever by theological bullying. Of that, you may be certain.