Surely all would have been relevant
2006-11-19 13:48:58 · 13 answers · asked by rosbif 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some of them were considered spurious or heretical. One of them, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, talks about Jesus using his powers to kill children and blinding people (no joke). There are quite a few, along with several other acts, epistles, and apocalypses.
In the beginning of the church, there was no organization of the various churches, and few, if any, had a whole New Testament. Many had a single gospel and possibly and epistle or two. As Christianity grew, more and more copies of the various books were around, and the current New Testament, or actually something close to it, was compiled. Many of these books (for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) were rejected. There was some debate on six of the books, two of which (Hebrews and Revelations) were included; four of them, including the Didache (or the "Teachings of the Twelve Apostles"), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement (now called First Clement because a purely apocryphal Second Clement also exist), and an apocalyptic book titled the Shepherd of Hermas, were rejected. This final decision on these six books were decided at a church council.
All of these "extra" books are called the New Testament Apocrypha by scholars.
2006-11-19 14:18:13 · answer #1 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are no other Gospels to be included in the Bible.
There are numerous heretical, gnostic "gospels," which as Paul says, "...a different gospel, which is not really another one..." (Galatians 1:6-7)
These pseudepigraphia have been completely discredited, and they add nothing of value to the Christian walk. Most were written several generations, or even centuries, after the original Gospel writers died.
Most of these "gospels" aren't really gospels at all. Many of these are polar opposites to the true Gospels. The Councils that met to canonize Scripture had several criteria for the books that make up the New Testament to be considered valid.
1) They must have Apostolic authority, in that they had been written by or for an Apostle.
2) They had to be consistent with the rule of faith practiced by the churches at that time.
3) They had to have been accepted and used by those churches.
2006-11-19 13:53:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
actually there are more gospels like the gospel of mary magdalene and the gospel of judas. these gospels were not accepted by mainstream christianity therefore they are considered heresay. these books of the bible are called the gnostic gospels. Funny as it is the term gnosis is greek for the word knowledge.
2006-11-19 13:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by Karli P 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a great question cause there is a book for the scriptures that was left out of the bible and it records Jesus when he was a child growing up and how he played marbles with other kids and lots of good information concerning Jesus. Now why the king James Bible does not reveal this unto us is unknown. So far as for me thanks for bringing this to my attention cause I will go to the bible book store and request or order this book.
2006-11-19 13:56:44 · answer #4 · answered by JoJoBa 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the church fathers put in what they liked and burned what they didn’t like (aka picking & choosing). For instance they rejected every writing which indicated Jesus was married, and especially the writings of Mary Magdalene’s disciples (including the one where Mary says “Peter hates our race”, meaning women. Not very divine behaviour, is it?
2006-11-19 13:57:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the council of nicea decided which gospels were written by real apostles and fit with the rest of scripture, the others had inconsistencies and were deamed not inspired form God. If you can't trust it a little, you can't trust it at all.
2006-11-19 13:54:38 · answer #6 · answered by The GMC 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Don't listen to those idiots. The Bible was edited accorded to the varius agendas of multiple individuals. That is one of the reasons why it cannot be trusted.
2006-11-19 13:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They all were-- there are 7 books from the Old Testament that should be in there that aren't though.
2006-11-19 14:09:34 · answer #8 · answered by Midge 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its so funny that these people are saying that they are all in the bible when they had no proof!
2006-11-19 13:55:06 · answer #9 · answered by daisy322_98 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
All are in the bible. You must be really dumb ask a question like that when we have such a perfect God.
2006-11-19 13:52:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋