The gospels of Thomas was discarded as Rubbish by the council of Nicea.?
964720
At the time of the Nicean Council, there were basically hundreds of Christian sects with hundreds of differing Gospels.  The council was created to unify Christian theology and belief in order to prevent conflict.  The church fathers who met decided on the Gospels that we're all familiar with now as they were the most common amongst the varying sects.  The Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, Phillip, etc were discarded because the texts didn't represent the majority of Christianity at the time.  This doesn't mean that there's not any value to them.
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.
719647
Listen, I'm a very devout, strong-faithed Christian (though not always very obedient), but I gotta tell you, bibles are JUST BOOKS WITH PAPER.  Sure, the paper is special and extra-thin, but recycling them won't send you to hell.  God doesn't want you to waste, and if they're sitting around not being used, they're going to waste.  Recycle them, God won't hate you for it.
760279
you can dismiss the Gospels if you wish but they are the evidence that Jesus indeed rose from the dead as He said that He would, and the Temple Jews would have tried all in their power to refute this which they did, but the Apostles and Disciples knew the truth.
470247
:}\nIf it is the same document that existed in the first and second century, it was treated as heresy then and should be now\n\nif it isn't, it's a fake
1176319
honestly if you think the trinity was just added to the bible at nicea .. dont you think they would have put the word trinity in the bible ?? \n\nPlease recognize that this question is for thoughtful consideration and polite responses. Please try to be acedemic in your answer approach. Thanks
950141
Why do you assume they don't? I've read it. Most of the sites out there on the Internet that host it are Christian apologetic sites, or Christian history sites collecting ante-Nicene writings. You wouldn't even know of this text if early Christian scroll-writers hadn't set it down.\n\nThomas is not included in the canon of scripture for reasons we can only speculate at, as the consensus on what should be a gospel formed in the 2nd century and we don't have all the discussions that took place at hand.\n\nHowever, those reasons likely include:\n\n- Thomas contains no narrative. As such, the words of Thomas could not be reliably placed on the scene. How could it be known if the text was unaltered if the writing never gives context to any of the sayings, for instance placing them within the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper, or even just some outing across the Sea of Galilee?\n\n- There's no guarantee Thomas possesses any of the antiquity some want to attribute to it. The only complete copy is from the Nag Hammadi find in the 5th century, making it younger than Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. No reference to a "Thomas gospel" predates the second century, which is not the case for the canonicals.\n\n- Thomas is gnostic, a theological position the early church categorically rejected.\n\nThat said, I've read it, and am thoroughly acquainted with it. It has its inspiring moments.
693555
On the contrary my friend...\n\nThe writings you mention date from after the time of Christ (and after the writings of the NT gospels).\n\nThe NT gospels were authenticated by immediate disciples of Jesus Christ.\n\nLater writings from 150-1000 years after Jesus were NOT authenticated by the disciples of Jesus Christ (the ones who had actually spent time with Jesus, and so were eyewitnesses of the things he said and did).\n\nCordially,\nJohn
890129
The Book of Tobit is a terrific story ... and it's still part of the original Canon of scripture, courtesy of Jesus' universal, full gospel church.\n\nThat's the Catholic Church ... the church with authority given to it by God to make those types of decisions.\n\nI wonder, what authority did the reformers have, and where did it come from, when they chose to remove the Book of Tobit, as well as the other "apocryphal" books from the Bible, especially since the matter had been settled for over a thousand years?
717425
There are no hidden 'facts'.  A few years ago we had the movie Stigmata revealing a hidden Gospel.  It turns out to be the Gospel of Thomas, readily available at any Barnes and Noble.  The Church certainly did a good job of suppressing that one.  Dan Brown 'unearths' the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, a Gnostic Gospel similarly in print for many centuries.  I have a copy myself.  It is in a Collection titled "Hidden Gospels".  It has not been suppressed.  It is simply not believed by mainstream Christians.  Most recently we have the Gospel of Judas.  This is another Gnostic Gospel condemned by early Church leaders at least as early as 180 A.D.  These are all historical documents that have been known to scholars for many years.  They have been on the dustheap for all those years simply because they haven't been seen as credible by any reasonable historian or theologian.
278916
I know about them and even belive some of them to be the truth such as the Gospel of thomas and the infancies of thomas, and most christians do belive in the Apocryphal Gospels without knowing it. The assemblies of God preach the when jesus died he went to hell and "set the captives free" which is not anywhere in the cannon in fact this is found in the apocryphal books.Also part of the reason they weren't cannonized is because they weren't found until after the cannon was set, as for the Gospel of thomas it wasn't accepted because the catholics didn't want people to belive that they didn't need to go to church to be christian because the love of money is the roo of all evil. Oh and P.S. LOVE the quotation marks, I belive that most people who claim to be christian are a bunch of fakers if they weren't they wouldn't be on here harrassing people and deliberatly trying to hurt others.
846087
I would assume it is ascribed to Joseph of Aramathea,  the rich man who Jesus body was buried in... according to Isaiah 53... He would counted with criminals but with a rich man in his death\n\nproblem with allot of the lost gospels  is they claim big names for credibility doesnt go allong with the humility of the other books...\n\nconsider.. Matthew the tax collector, Mark the guy who abandoned Paul on a mission trip  or Luke the gentile... notice except for the gospel of John the longest living apostle..  the rest were not big name people...  and even the apostle John doesnt name himself in the book leaving himself as 'the unamed disciple who Jesus loved'  and even the genilte Dr Luke doesnt name himself ever eitehr out of humility\n\nthe last 'new' gospel the gospel of Judas  was known for 30 years  and ignored because  there was only 1 copy and about 2 centuries late...  if it werent for the Da Vinc that Stol Easter movie  (aka Davinci code)  it would get no attention\n\nthis is proabbly the same
622037
Those verses were included in the Greek manuscripts that were used to form the Textus Receptus, the esteemed manuscript used to translate the Bible until recently. The newer found manuscripts don't have those verses. Since they are reportedly older, it is assumed they are better. The logical assumption is that these were discarded by the theologians of the early days in favor of the better manuscripts that became the Received Text or Textus Receptus. The study of the manuscripts and the men behind their publication is pretty interesting and quite revealing.
124024
Cyanne, think!!  The Dead Sea scrolls show that almost the entire Old Testament had not changed a single word in well over two thousand years.  Of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts in existence, there are very minor discrepancies (eg. the second half of Mark 16 - was it added later?) but the underlying content can be demonstrated as being unchanged.  Those who claim the Bible has been 'changed' repeatedly simply do so as a crutch to avoid considering the claims made BY the Bible.\n\nAs for apostles and miracle workers, the Bible states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  GOD is the same; however, the way He works changes.\n\nThe passages in Paul's letters referring to spiritual gifts make no distinction between 'miraculous' gifts and 'natural' ones such as administration.  No-one claims that administration should have disappeared from the church, so why miracles or prophecy?\n\nThe scriptural arguments on both sides are complex, but the bottom line for me is that the Bible gives no indication that these gifts should disappear.  If they were supposed to be gone from the church, the Bible would tell us!
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.
1139277
You do find so much rubbish in answer to sensible questions!\n\nThe early Church were under a new covenenant, the blood of Jesus, and so the strict rules of the old one, which everyone failed at anyway, were void.\n\nActs 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.\n\nPork is back on the menu!
347038
nope. there are quite a few false "gospels" that different sects like the gnostics wrote that are not in accordance with the rest of the Bible. its interesting historically and teaches us more about these sects, but it doesnt mean that it was ever part of maintstream Christianity or that its true. the gospel of judas sounds like pretty typical gnostic stuff- the flesh is bad, the spirit is good, judas was helping Jesus get rid of the bad flesh, only certain special people get special knowledge... nothing particularly new, just dealing with judas.