There were many Gospels why was Gospel of Judas rejected by Church & only 4 were accepted?
356808
The Gospel of Judas totally refutes the idea that Judas 'sold out' Jesus and suggests that he was instructed to do what he did by Jesus. This was unacceptable to the early Catholic Church and so was expunged from the gospels completely.\n\nIt goes without saying that Judas' actions are believed to be responsible for the way Judaism is reviled and the Jews have been persecuted throughout history. If it ever came out that Judas was just acting under orders there would be a lot of shamed people in the world.
213224
because a decision had to be made because at the time of canonization, there were inumerable gospels and letters floating around.  The leaders of the Catholic church tried to pick the books that flowed, were the most consistant, and upheld the basic beliefs of the church.  Also, many texts were found after the fact.  Interesting fact- protestants have not cannonized a Bible, they simply borrow that of the Catholics.
649454
I just checked out the Gospel of Judas the other day @ the local B&N. Wow. It felt like a part of history jumping into my hands.\n\nKnowing what Judas was to become; reading what depictions he'd written of Jesus; the pieces of text felt so raw with emotion. They felt so real. Knowing the ending of the story of course, did make some of the pre-betrayal friendliness tough to swallow.\n\nThis brought me to the realization that these newer books need to be included, don't they? I haven't asked my priest at church, but a newer version has to be in the works.\n\nForget about red tape, just order the entries and publish the thing.\n\nWith the Da Vinci Code getting more publicity than the Dead Sea Scrolls, now'd be a pretty good time to release a newer, fuller edition of The Bible.\n\nThanks for answering my last question,\n\n-Justin
319870
Here it is, and I'm going to cut and paste from another answer I gave, b cuz I've answered this so many times now...\n\nThe gospel of Judas is not credible. Scientists believe it to be the work of gnostics, a mystical early Christian denomination. People in those times did not have the access to the scriptures as we do today. They rarely had more than one or two books of the Bible at one time, so they often did not know what the other parts said. Gnostics often wrote stories of the way they thought things might be. The gospel of Judas is a philosophical conjecture, not scripture. It was also written at least 100 years after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - the 4 gospels present in the Bible that tell of Judas's betrayal.\nAlso, because "gospel" means "good news", and the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, the text would have to include the crucifixion and resurrection. The gospel of Judas tells of neither.\n\nAs for the other gospels, the earliest known manuscripts date from 65 to 95 AD. That is 35 to 65 years after Christ died. It is quite possible then, that even if these were the earliest manuscripts (and not just the earliest known ones) that they are first-hand accounts.\n\nAnd by the way, the verse that people use to say that we are not to add or remove from the Bible is found in Revelation 22:18 - For I testify to anyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are mentioned in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.\n\n"This book" refers to the book of revelation - not the entire Bible. The Bible as a whole book did not exist when Revelation was written. Granted we are not to add or remove from scriptures, but this verse is misused all too often. Furthermore, we are to use good judgement by finding out the origins and intentions of any text before latching on to it as scripture.
1103332
There is no question whatsoever the "gospels" were tampered with.\n\nSir Isaac Newton (of falling apple fame), one of the most brilliant men in history, rejected the Trinity (Jesus is God) after studying the bible and the "gospels."\n\nIsaac Newton was a (Unitarian) Christian and a scientist. He studied religion far more than science.\n\n\nSee link below:
463231
Its another fake Gospel written by an early christian sect who obviously had no contact with Jesus, the disciples or the disciples followers. It was common for christian sects with no direct link to church founders to create bogus gospels to support there beliefs.\nIf the gospel is real it would have been mentioned somewhere in the ancient history or copies of it would have surfaced elsewhere. Not to mention a true gospel always matches with what the rest of the bible says.\nPeople have a bad habit of thinking if a text is old then it must be a part of Gods word.  This is not true!
632633
The Bible clearly indicates that Judas was not saved. Jesus Himself said of Judas, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24). John 17:12 also says concerning Judas, “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost  except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” At one time, though, Judas believed that Jesus was a prophet, or possibly even believed He was the Messiah. Jesus sent the disciples out to proclaim the Gospel and perform miracles (Luke 9:1-6). Judas was included in this group. Judas had faith, but it was not a true faith, or at best it was a very shallow faith. Judas was never “saved” but for a time he was a follower of Christ.
567374
These claims are just that, claims.  There is no foundation of truth to these claims.  The word canon is closely related "reed."  Our word "cane" comes from the same word.  The idea is a measuring stick.  The idea is that canonical scriptures are those scriptures by which we measure our lives.  Who decides what is canonical?  Whoever is reading it, honestly.  We see that principal in Acts 17:11, when the Bereans were considered most noble because they examined the scriptures (Old Testament here) to see if what Paul said was true.  I do not agree with the Catholic's church of making the books officialy recognized (making acceptance of other books or rejection of any of the 27 a heracy) in the 16th century as a reaction to Martin Luther questioning the authority of the book of James.  \n\nHowever, history tells us that NO OTHER BOOKS have ever been widely accepted as scripture.  It also tells us that EVERY book in the New Testament WAS widely accepted as scripture.  The early church fathers, who wrote between the last part of the first century, and the first part of the second century, collectively quoted almost every single verse in the New Testament in their writtings.  No other books were quoted as scripture by them at all.  \n\nThe Muratorian Fragment is one of the earliests know lists of New Testament books.  Although it is incomplete, it refers to Luke as the "third" Gospel.  This would have been around the same time or before Irenaeus (I don't know the exact date of that fragment, only that it was the second half of the second century).  \n\nAs to your claim that we only have the 4 gospels to have the "slavation shallows...that we merely have to accept Jesus on faith and we are saved..." this is a ridiculous claim.  First of all, the Gospels say very little (although they are not completely silent) about how to be saved.  Mostly we find that in Acts and Paul's letters (Paul's letters are also written before most of the Gospels).  The simplicity of the Good News is found in Paul's writings.  \n\nAlthough I don't know the date of the three gospels you have mentioned, I know that most of the gnostic gospels are usually dated around 200 A.D.  This is reason enough to reject them.  Also, despite recent claims made by The DaVinci Code, the other gospels made Jesus out to be some mystic demi-god that didn't come in the flesh at all.  In fact, the gnostic gospels (the recent gospel of Judas among them), don't have a Jewish veiw of God at all, don't quote the Old Testament, and reject many of the events that fulfilled Old Testament prophesy about Jesus.  Their beliefs come from some Greek and Roman beliefs, and as such should be rejected.\n\nThe decision of what should be canon and what should not still goes on today.  Most of that decision goes on today in the form of Textual Criticism.  However, I believe Christians should still look at the 27 books we have and ask themselves, "Do these belong here?"  I believe we should still read some of the other early Christian writings and ask "Should these be considered scripture?"  I have done much study, and I am convinced that the 27 books in the New Testament are the ones by which I need to live my life.  Questioning what has been passed down, however, is never a bad idea.  Just make sure you don't obsess over it that you WANT to believe something else so badly that you don't remain objective (or that you want TO believe it, for that matter).  \n\nGod bless.\n\nP.S.  The importance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is found througout the scripture, especially the letters of Paul and the writings of John.
370006
Well... the church has a history of hiding the facts that question their stance. This question of the church coverups has come up most recently because of the release of some new gospels, and their messages went in the face of much of the churches opinions and beliefs. The difficult thing is that these new gospels were kept from being in the bible by church officials over a thousand years after Christs death. The gospels in question were discarded during the cutting process. This could be looked at ascovering up the truth of Christ. As for the validity of Jesus having a wife and children, well, time may tell.
908845
How much proof can there be for a book writen under the auspices of a pagan roman emperor who worshiped the sun God to his death.\n\nEven The four gospels were not written by the apostles.\n\nThey were written close to the end of the first century long after the apostles were dead and gone. The john who wrote revelations was not the apostle john. He was a poor man kept in prison so long that he simply lost his mind and started to imagine a vengeful God who would punish his captors and anyone like them.\n\nThe bible was created 2 centurys later by the roman empire to change the message of Jesus to something that the Romans found more acceptable.\n\nThis is why it is often difficult to understand. The message of Jesus on the other hand is elegant and simple to understand. You need to separate the message that Jesus left for us from all of the nonsense that the Romans overlaid it with and it will start to become quite easy to understand.\n\nDon't take my word for any of this. Study biblical history for your self and draw your own conclusions. There are many good books on this subject by some intelligent and thoughtful people. Take advantage of their efforts. \n\nEmail if you are interested and I will send so suggested reading material.\n\nLove and blessings.\nDon
219102
Several reasons:\n\n1) Repitition: As noted above, in some instances possible bible books were left out because they added no new information or teaching.  The Gospel of Thomas is sometimes considered to be in this category.\n2) Heresy: Some early books were left out because they conflicted with Church teaching.  The Infancy Gospel falls into this category.\n3) Suppression: It's been argued that certain parts (such as the allegedly missing part of the Gospel of Mark) were excised because, though they were canon, the words lent support to non-canonical interpretations such as gnosticism.  Evidence for this is sketchy.\n4) Deuterocanonical books: There are several books (such as the Books of Maccabees) that are included in some denominations' bibles (i.e., Catholic or Orthodox) and not others (i.e., Protestant).  They were added to the Bible late in time, and thus many Christians do not consider them necessary.
304021
The Gospel of Judas was written many many years after the apostles lived and their associates (Timothy and Luke). Where did you get your historical research? \nGive me a break. \n\nThe gnostic gospels are from beliefs that began in the 2nd and 3rd century, which meens that the writings come from a time period more than 100 years after Jesus ministry, far later than any New Testament book. Why in the world should we believe that these later documents tell us more about events than the earlier documents? They are simply not useful for trying to understand Jesus ministry and the shape of very early Christianity. (1)\n\nThe gnostic gospels were late arrivals, which is ONE reason why church leaders rejected them ... they lacked authority since their authors were neither (a) apostles of Jesus nor (b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus... and no one knows who wrote those gnostic gospels. (2)
1025430
Because Judas was dead.
1024989
Is been revised too many times to please the founding fathers of the catholic church. I think the Gospels ancient writtings that are being discovered recently will shed much information missing from the new testament.
401241
I found the presentation on NGC interesting. While the jury is out on the authenticity of the document, it does present a different perspective held by Christians of the time. Diversity in beliefs and expressions is nothing new to the Church, and we should be open to new ideas based upon new information coming to light.\n\nThe idea of Judas acting on behalf of Jesus is also nothing new, and has been present throughout Christian history.\n\nNew ideas do not threaten my beliefs or weaken my faith.
455033
I don't believe this so called "Gospel of Judas". I don't doubt that it exists, or that it was written when it was supposedly written, but I do believe the writer skewed the text to reflect his/her thoughts and that it is not an accurate account of the facts. Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus and yes it was a part of the grand design that God had planned for the salvation of man. I don't think Judas necessarily betrayed Jesus because Jesus told him to though, I think Judas didn't realize at the time of the betrayal that it would end in the crucifixion of his Lord. That's why Judas tried to get the Pharisees to take back the 30 pieces of silver and why he ultimately committed suicide. This is simply another example of how satan tries to confuse the truth and turn people away from God.
932754
If this is a reference to the Gospel of Judas, which reads that Judas and Jesus had worked it all out that Judas would turn Jesus in to the Romans in order to facilitate his death and sacrifice, then yes, Judas was shafted by the councils that decided what Christian canon would be.