Why do christians not accept the non-canocial gospels?

Question

Non-Canocial gospels are the gospels that were not included in the New testament. There are at least 29 of them. For example: the Gospel of Peter is said to predate the gospel of canocial gospels, so why isnt it avidly read by the Christian church? Is there an official reason?

Answer 1

An essential part of being a Christian is being a =community=, i.e. the Church. Christianity is not simply a set of beliefs. The community of the Church, in all its diversity, has a common history and part of that history is the canonization of its Scriptures. IOW, at a point in its existance (about 300 years after Christ) the Church came to recognize certain writings as sacred and others as not. Though this was not universally agreed upon (some parts of the Church recognize the inter-testament books, some times called the Books of the Apocrypha), for the great majority of Christians in the West the canon is closed.

Re. the Gospel of Peter, earlier does not necessarily mean closer to the truth. FWIW, the Gospel of Thomas is gaining authority among moderate/liberal Christians.

BTW, many of the church "fathers", Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al., raised serious questions about what the canon included.

Good question!

Answer 2

We have 4 canon gospels. These gospels were chosen for a number of reasons. They were written by prominent men in the Church. They stand up to historical scrutiny. Their origins can be traced and corroberated. They were what the majority of Christians were using at the time anyways.

False gospels like the Gospel of Peter did not meet these conditions so they were thrown out. When you compare the gospel off Peter and see that it gives a different account of Jesus's life than the other Gospels which are you going to throw out? The ones that are backed up by both precident and historical evidence or the one that was simply written and contradicts?

Of course there were plenty of people trying to currupt the gospel. Paul even wrote about it in Galatians.

Answer 3

Technically, the canon is not closed and something could be added to it, though it would take a lot of evidence! Here are the traits of what makes something canonical (from wikipedia). . . I don't know those texts well enough to say how it measures up to these standards, but hopefully this will help a little.

" 1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings."

Answer 4

the gospel of Peter?????
where two angels walk out of the tomb followed by a TALKING cross???? Christians always thought they were a load of hoooey.. Isnt it odd... the disciples report a talking cross in the gospel of Peter and in no other gospel... peculiar? yes

the gospel of Thomas wheer Jesus tells Mary Mag that she has to become a man to be saved.... it gets piled higher and deeper
my my my

the reason is they do not believe they are valid and the early church never accepted them... they look like fakes
They generally have frivolous miracles where the gospels have signs pointing to a truth. Jesus makes clay animals pigeons a dn breaths them to life... but not to glorify God or point to a truth... just frivolous

Like a good con artist might the gnostic gospels fake BIG NAMED like Peter with little content... the gospels were mostly written by the lesser known apostles and even in the case of Luke and John the apostles don't even name themselves in through books out of humility... not so with the fake gnostic gospels Where the real gospels lead off with the TAX COLLECTOR Matthew, the missionary quitter Mark, and the unamed Luke and unamed John... much more humble... but the real deal

Answer 5

The biblical canon is a list of books written during the formative periods of the Jewish or Christian faiths. The leaders of these communities hold the books in their respective canons to be inspired by God and to authoritatively express the historical relationship between God and his people.

There are differences between the Jewish and Christian canons, and between the canons of different Christian traditions. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the communities regard as the Bible. The making of a New Testament canon was an important step in stabilizing the early Christian Church.

Answer 6

You are talking of the Gnostic gospels. They are not considered inspired by the Church, they were written by the Gnostic's, which would be the equivalent as what we in this age know as Communist, not being friends of Christ or Christianity

Answer 7

Yeah...Pooter has it right...you are referring to the "Gnostic" Gospels...there is also a Gospel of Mary....

Answer 8

I'm sure there's an official justification but is it the real reason? I don't think so. The reason must be (IMHO) that history is constantly being rewritten by those who are in power - to suit their needs.

Answer 9

You said it yourself they are non-conical. We have the Gospel fully explained in the others we don't need to add unclearity.... Jim

Answer 10

Do a study on the canon. Why would you ask such a dumb question? "Non-Canonical" means that it is "not" Scripture. Go to a Catholic church, they will read anything you want, except "Non-Catholic" material.
Your question must be a joke. No one is that stupid, I don't think?