discussed more often? Are they taken seriously in Christian circles? If not all are taken seriously which ones are? Why werent they included in the Bible?
2006-12-20 12:52:14 · 13 answers · asked by Charles Dobson Focus on the fam 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no matter what people say the gospel of mary was an orginal text. proffof this comes from ethoipean christanity which has been un changed for 2k years almost.
2006-12-20 12:55:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is that:
a) the canon of the Bible came through tradition, meaning that churches began recognizing as official those books that were treated as authentic and as inspired;
b) the churches that became the catholic faith (later the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches) began to enforce this canon in order to standardize worship and understanding of God among all its congregations; and
c) those texts that did not make it into the canon became less and less popular because the church did not recognize them as authentic.
Conspiracy theorists will say more on this, but the fact is that the most popular and most widely accepted texts of the time were canonized and others were not. Often, these other "gopels" were of particular sects, holy to them but ignored by others (the Gnostics are a good example). Other texts were popular but seen as either less authentic or as not adding enough to make inclusion necessary (Second Letter of Clement, for example).
In the end, there was a need for a coherent set of texts and the Bible couldn't be infinitely large. The texts not included in the Bible may be important, but they'll never be taken as seriously as those that made the grade early on. This is why in my denomination we teach that all things necessary to salvation are found in Scripture, but that other texts (especially the Apocrypha) may be read and studied for insight.
2006-12-20 20:54:26 · answer #2 · answered by TheGoodFather 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were many so-called gospels written between 100 A.D. and 300 A.D. Most of them by groups of heretics trying to justify their false belief.
One example of recent note is the gospel of Judas that was written about 180 A.D. However it was written by a group of heretics called Gnostics who believed that Jesus was only a man and not God.
Catholics of both of that time and now do not believe these 'gospels' are true or inspired by God.
This is clearly shown when Catholics guided by the Holy Spirit selected which gospels and other writings should be included in the New Testament. The gospels of Judas, etc. were not included.
With love in Christ.
2006-12-22 01:47:06 · answer #3 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were not included in the Bible (along with about 7 or 8 other gospels you didn't mention), because they were not in full accord with Apostolic Tradition, which constituted the totality of teaching in the early Christian (Catholic) Church. The principle objective criterion which the Catholic bishops used in defining the Canon of Scripture once and for all time was strict adherence to the teaching of the Catholic Church for the previous 350 years. Which is why it is absurd to suggest that anything the Catholic Church teaches is in conflict with the Bible. Of course, Catholic teaching may be in conflict with some personal interpretations of the Bible, but that simply reveals the lack of validity of personal interpretation. Nothing the Catholic Church teaches can possibly conflict with the true meaning of any biblical passage, since Jesus, the founder of the Catholic Church, guaranteed the truth of its teaching, and truth can never conflict with truth.
.
2006-12-20 20:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by barbara m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the catholics pulled them out, citing that they didnt beleive they were relevant to the word of God.
Actually, the book of Mary Magdelene is supposed to be the most insightful as to who Jesus really was.
Thomas would have been good because he doubted Jesus the most until after he rose from the dead. I would like to read all of them in a paragraph style translation, similar to the bible version called "The Message."
The mainstream Christians do not take these books seriously.
I beleive in Christ, but I dont label myself as a cookie cutter non- thinking Christian.
2006-12-20 21:00:34 · answer #5 · answered by Le Nuez Vert` 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thomas wrote that Jesus wanted people to have a direct relationship with God, no organized religion was needed. Organized religion doesn't like that, and banned the Gospel of Thomas.
2006-12-20 21:11:26 · answer #6 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A few days ago I saw a show on Discovery about this very subject. These books were omitted because they did not further the position of the church. They also contradict Paul's version of the bible.
2006-12-20 21:05:55 · answer #7 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They aren't taken seriously in the circles I run in. The early church didn't consider them to be as faithful of witnesses to who they understood Jesus to be - i.e. they felt they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. As such they were left out of the bible.
The ones that are taken seriously are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
2006-12-20 20:59:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They dont conform to the certain agenda the Bible compilers were trying to push. Regardless they are all good reads and shed some alternative light on Early Christianity
2006-12-20 20:54:49 · answer #9 · answered by tchem75 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the early church, basically the vatican's predecesor, picked the 4 gospels we use in the bible. this does not discount the others relevance, just that the early leaders felt the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and john were "safest" and "most holy" ie they dealt most favorably (in thier eyes) of christ.
2006-12-20 20:55:47 · answer #10 · answered by all in on the flop 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋