what are gnostic gospels?
459168
Gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, Mary Magdalene and Thomas.  These gospels emphasized the gnostic viewpoint of early christianity.  The word gnostic means to know.  Gnostics believed that every individual could know God himself.  The early church tried to destroy all the gnostic gospels and declared them heresy because they basically made the organized church unnecesary.
680769
It comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means 'knowledge.' The term GNOSTIC has come to mean those adherents of esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by some to be essential to one's salvation...\n\nWhile AGNOSTIC is one who remains uncertain or uncommitted to the existence of God or a deity/ies...
824078
it is an older form of pure Christianity that is more like what jesus taught than the prechristian jewish bible. It is based upon knowledge and experience more than faith. it was superceded by the present day verison of christianity when Constantine, as new emporer of Rome, declared the council of Nicea meet and then they obliterated all other forms of Christianity they did not approve. The later Christians called these older christians Gnostic, because they claimed to KNOW rather than believe. regular Christians are called Pistic, being based upon faith. the so-called gnostic christians just called themselves christians, not gnostic christians. that name was made up for them by their enemies who destroyed them. some of their old writings have survived and there is a lot of interest in their teachings now as being better form of true christianity. They have a different tale than the adam and eve tale, which is actually a jewish tale.\n look up NAG HAMADI library on net and you will get a boatload of info.
1091961
No, read the following link:\nhttp://www.scripturessay.com/q563.html\n\nAs this document confirms, the Da Vinic Code and Gnostic Gospels are fraudulent teachings by Greeks trying to influence Christians.
508345
Some, like the Gospel of Thomas, seem as sound as anything in the NT.  Some Gnostic scriptures are so strange I am not sure what they are about, like Thunder, Perfect Mind.\n\nhttp://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html
282461
There were lots of writings around, and none of them were called "gospels" at the time--they were just writings from different people.  The word "gospel" just meant "good news."  For example, if you look in your New Testament, you'll see that the Apostle Paul's writings are called "epistles" (another word for a letter or written message).\n\nThe first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written in the early days after the death of Jesus.  (The book of Luke and the book of Acts were originally one book.)  These three are called the "Synoptic Gospels" ("Seeing Together Gospels") because they have a lot in common, including some of the same source material--scholars  believe that the writers of all three of these gospels had read a document called the "Q Source" or"Sayings Source", which was a collection of things Jesus had said.\n\nThe fourth gospel, that of John, was written much later than the first three--no earlier than 90 C.E.--and is very different from them.  It contains a lot of visionary poetic imagery, and seems to reflect Gnostic teachings.\n\nA lot of other people wrote accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus.  If the Bible had included them all, it would fill a bookcase.  Many of these other accounts have been lost, though some (such as the Gospel of Thomas) have been rediscovered.\n\nIn the beginnings of Christianity, there was no unified organization;  there were just a lot of different individuals and congregations who had heard about Jesus from different people.  So there was no real agreement about what books were sacred and/or authoritative. \n\nOn several different occasions, Christian leaders organized councils to discuss these questions.  A key council was the Council of Nicea.  There were a lot of arguments and politics there, and some doctrines were adopted and other conflicting ideas were declared heresies.  The Nicene Creed originated there.\n\nThis is how both the official doctrines and the official canons (declarations of what books and writings were holy) were formed.  Some Christian groups never affiliated with the Catholic Church (for example some of the Ethiopian and Coptic groups, etc.)  Some of these groups had other ideas about which writings were important.\n\nMuch later, when Martin Luther established Protestantism, the Protestants threw out some of the Bible materials they did not believe was authentic.\n\nI suggest you do a web search on the phrases "Council of Nicea", "Nicene Creed", "Bishop Arrius", "Bishop Athanasius", "Emperor Constantine", and "Early Christian heresies" and do some reading.  The links suggested by some of the people who have already answered this question are good, too.\n\nI'm not listing any links because I am writing from memory;  I studied religion in college, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth.  ;-)
655811
There is no "new" gospel.  Scripture was canonized by God's sovereignty.  Revelation 22:18 might be of interest to anyone claiming they have found "new" writings.  ("...If any man shall ADD unto these words, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book")
1002533
You may read the Gospel of Mark, for example here:\n\nhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PW3.HTM#GOSP.MAR.1.1
102727
I certainly believe they exist, and have read several books on them, and did some extensive research on the Gospel of Thomas.  Do I believe they should be in the Bible?  No.  Many of the people who talk about them here have not read them, and there are several that we don't even have a complete copy of; the Gospel of Mary is an example of this.  There is some theology, especially concering creation, that are contrary to the rest of scripture.  Gnostics also have what is known as a docetic view of Jesus.  That is, that Jesus wasn't human, he only appeared to be human.  Gnostics believe that the physical world is evil, and so God would never have taken on human form.\n\nAlso, there are plenty of other writings that were not included in the Bible.  Letters from other church fathers such as Clement, and other books such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were considered for the canon, but not included.  So, it wasn't just the Gnostic gospels that were not included.\n\nThe Gnostic gospels are valuable however, because they show us some of how Christianity developed early in its history.\n\nFinally, it is important to know that for many of the Gnostic Gospels, we had no copies or only fragments of many of them before a discovery at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 1950's.  So, there hasn't been a long running conspiracy to keep these books from the public.
410323
The Secret Gospel of Mark (not part of the official Christian canon) implies that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Lazarus. \n\nWhether Jesus was gay, or had children with Mary Magdalene, is all just speculation. We really don't know anything about Jesus beyond what's written in the gospels...and the gospels were written long after Jesus' death.
875681
I've read the Gospel of Barnabus, it is very similar to the ones in the new testament, it was ommitted by the Vatican because it spoke of prophecies conserning the coming of a final Prophet after Jesus.
310344
3rd or 4th-century document called "The Gospel of Judas" was launched upon an unsuspecting world yesterday by no less a biblical authority than the National Geographic magazine in Washington. Its contents were "explosive", according to Mario Roberty, president of the Swiss foundation which now owns the ancient papyrus manuscript. \n\nSo as the heat faded from the television lights at the press conference, has 2000 years of orthodox Christianity been overturned? Well, not quite. But it was all jolly interesting, for those who love that sort of thing.\n\nHalf of the 62-page codex, written in Coptic script, is devoted to an account of the final days of Jesus Christ written from the viewpoint of the man who has for two millennia been excoriated as Christ's deadly betrayer. The text begins: "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot three days before he celebrated Passover..."
475472
the gospel of judas was written in 300 ad in egypt, it a gnostic gospel , judas had nothing to do with writing this gospel. the gnostics also wrote other gospels like nathans stevens and marys among others, gnostics could be compared to new age believers today who think knowledge is the ultimate goal of humanity. theyve turned satan, in the garden of eden, into good character , now you want me to believe a gospel from the gnostics about judas is true when they believe satan is a good guy because of his knowledge .. come on
674285
The Koran is an excellent guide, as are some Hindu texts, American Indian legends, and many others, and upon those things which all agree is most likely the most firm truth.\n\nI personally only credit the gospel of Thomas as being at least on par with the other four gospels, the rest of the gnostic texts seems to be inconplete, or contrary to wisdom.\n\nOnce again I agree with "lit the light up" (first answerer), whom I respect in my heart, except I believe Christ has already come again, and much of the truth has been firmly laid out. God's truth can never been entirely related in books, hence I say much of the truth, not all.\n\nSee sources for more.
1097128
Gnostic books contradict the diety of God. \nGnostic books are not inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
375883
Gnosticism is a blanket term for various religions and sects most prominent in the first few centuries AD Many elements of 2nd century gnosticsm are pre-Christian. The name of gnosticism comes from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis (γνώσις), referring to the idea that there is special, hidden knowledge that only a few may possess.  It's basically a religious orientation advocating gnosis as the way to release a person's spiritual element; considered heresy by Christian churches
685937
My understanding is that of a layman; there are many good reference works you can turn to for a better understanding. Apparently they are the earliest of the gospel accounts, and therefore, the most reliable. The earliest gospel is considered to be the gospel of Mark, which is the shortest. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, as they share much common material. The Gospel of John is the most mystical of the gospel accounts.\n\nIn the early centuries of Christianity there was a number of writings being circulated, writings that were not included in the New Testament canon. The New Testament books are all believed to have been written in the first century. Many subsequent writings were those of groups such as the Gnostics, groups which came to be seen as heretical by the Catholic Church. Again, I am not an expert in church history, but all the books that came to be included in the NT came under close scrutiny and examination. It is my understanding that it was argued at length as to whether \nthe book of Revelation was to be included in the canon.