Why beleive the Canonical Gospels but not the Gnostic Gospels?

Question

Why did the Catholic church not include the Gnostic Gospels into the Bible. Certain things are evident in the Gnostic Gospels and these are:

1. Mary Magdelene was an apostle of Christ.

2. Mary was Christ's favourite apostle and he taught her the most.

3. Peter was very jealous of Mary.

4. Mary was also Christ's lover.

5. Judas was asked by Christ to betray him which he did. He was just following Christ's wish.

6. Christ preached that all you had to do was keep God in your heart i.e. You don't need a religion to worship God.

No wonder the Gnostic Gospels were not included in the Bible . . .

There is no concrete evidence that the Canonical Gospels are true and there is no evidence that the Gnostic Gospels are true. So which do you believe and why? Please avoid emotions or feelings - reasons only please....

Answer 1

They don't contradict anything.

To be honest the canonical Gospels were chosen by Bishops from the West and emperor Constantine and they were edited to appear more orthodox, like removing sayings, concepts, and etc that conflicted with their agenda because they were att3mpting to make Jesus God by their creation of the Trinity which completely does away with the whole purpose that people are supposed to become like him through their own efforts. There has been clear definitive PROOF that the scriptures are grossly corrected. Consider this...

At the Baptism of Yeshua, in our bibles it reads as, "And lo a voice was heard from Heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." But the truth is this is a great sign of corruption. We see that in Hebrews 1:5 and any Christian writing that quotes that birth narrative before the Nicea Meeting and the 4th century reads that scene as, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." But to this day it has not been changed back to the original because they know what it conveys and it makes the whole Jesus being God thing suspect (which isn't the only thing that does) and what it is saying.

The Phillip Gospel isn't a Gospel, its more so a teachings about various things by Spiritual Christians, Mary Gospel is a Gospel of sorts but its not traditional, however it contradicts nothing.

The one Gospel that is more pure in its message and sayings content is the Thomas Gospel. That one dates back really far, like back into the 70 A.D. possibly or at least to the late 1st century in its original form. The Coptic Thomas Gospel dates back to the 3rd century, but the Greek much sooner. The whole Nag Hammadi gives a completely different look at primitive Christianity, but the Thomas Gospel single handily shows how much the gospels have been corrupted, and if you are willing to look through the Ante-Nicene Library you will see also how corrupted Christianity is, only a read over of Clement and Origen will make you look twice.

But the gospels pretty much came from the Hebrew Gospel Matthew, which was vastly different. I wouldn't be surprised if there is another library which shows how Christianity today is an lie, just like the Nag Hammadi showed and the Dead Sea Scrolls did.

But if you ask me the Spiritual Christians or Gnostic Christians had it right... the scriptures are allegories.

Answer 2

Because they did not meet the time line and other criteria for the Bible gospels.

1. There is no reliable proof that the gospel of Mary Magdalene was really written by her
2. Well, he might have 'favorited' somehow her for her being a female and following Him even though it was not common for women to be able to do that, but God loves all equally.
3. Jealousy did not make the Gnostic gospels any more reliable
4. Jesus was sinless, Jesus did not have any lovers and He never had sex, never.
5. No, Judas had his free will. Jesus just knew how he was going to use it. Jesus was right.
6. Yes, Christianity is a personal relationship with God, not a religion. However, God made us for the community and that is why church has a big role in our personal relationship with God. We are the body of Christ. Church is the body of Christ. All of us need to function properly for that body to perform right, meaning also showing up for the worship.

The four gospels are protected by God. They support the Scripture. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament and promised the NT.

Answer 3

Personally, I believe the Gospel of Thomas over any other Christian book ever...period. All it offers is parables and guidance--there is no dogma, no "do this" or "don't do that." It's simply teachings...and it hasn't been edited since it was written, unlike the Bible. It is pure and unadulterated and offers the best examples of Jesus' wisdom there could be. Furhermore, all of the other Gnostic Gospels haven't been edited either. They're still in their pure forms as well and can be trusted because man hasn't touched them...the current Bible (or whatever one of the 60 versions you choose to read) has been edited and interpreted too many times for it to be believable and accurate. The more hands that go into the soup, the worse it will taste. The Gnostic Gospels just give a different dimension of Christ's teachings, and they should be used to EXPAND Christianity--not limit it further.

St. Boniface--so, you don't believe the Gnostic Gospels simply because they contradict your beliefs? Your closed mindedness sickens me.

"Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." --Gospel of Thomas Saying 30

Answer 4

The four gospels were written within 50 years of the actual events and considered inspired text from the beginning. The Gnostic writings were written several hundred years later, and never considered inspired text. The four gospels were written by men who actually witnessed the events or knew those who had. The Gnostic writers cannot claim this. And, the Gnostic writings contradict the teachings of Scripture, the four gospels do not.

Answer 5

Because...

1) The OT was set before Christ arrived on the scene.
2) The OT was written in a much more backwards time by many more authors than the NT.
3) Jesus taught the OT, read from it, quoted it, said not to remove a single word, added nothing to it in writing, lived under it, and fulfilled it. (God proofread the OT for us)
4) Certainly the same Holy Spirit that somehow against all odds gave us a good OT also gave us a good NT.

Note - the OT that Christ used DID NOT contain the Apocrypha. Stick to the Protestant Canon.

agapefromnc

Answer 6

Look, lets cut through to the cream here, imagine for a moment that there was no Jesus, then of course all of the gospels would become what they rightfully would be, historic curiosities. Now the simple fact is there is no evidence at all to corroborate the existence of Jesus as such, though there must of course have been a clever rethink of old Jewish law in order to facilitate trade with the outside world.

Answer 7

The Spirit gives the word not a book. The Gnostic's were a different sect than the Christians altogether.

Answer 8

Because it exposes the Roman Catholic Church's bastardization of Ephesians chapter 5 verses 25-30. If people believed the kingdom of God was within them, there would be no need to attend mass

Answer 9

For one thing, the gnostic gospels contradict the traditions and teachings handed down by Jesus to his apostles.

"The attempt to picture Gnosticism as a mighty movement of the human mind towards the noblest and highest truth, a movement in some way parallel to that of Christianity, has completely failed. It has been abandoned by recent unprejudiced scholars such as W. Bousset and O. Gruppe, and it is to be regretted that it should have been renewed by an English writer, G.R.S. Mead, in "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten", an unscholarly and misleading work, which in English-speaking countries may retard the sober and true appreciation of Gnosticism as it was in historical fact. Gnosticism was not an advance, it was a retrogression. It was born amidst the last throes of expiring cults and civilizations in Western Asia and Egypt. Though hellenized, these countries remained Oriental and Semitic to the core. This Oriental spirit -- Attis of Asia Minor, Istar of Babylonia, Isis of Egypt, with the astrological and cosmogonic lore of the Asiatic world -- first sore beset by Ahuramazda in the East, and then overwhelmed by the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ in the West, called a truce by the fusion of both Parseeism and Christianity with itself. It tried to do for the East what Neo-Platonism tried to do for the West. During at least two centuries it was a real danger to Christianity, though not so great as some modern writers would make us believe, as if the merest breath might have changed the fortunes of Gnostic, as against orthodox, Christianity. Similar things are said of Mithraism and neo-Platonism as against the religion of Jesus Christ. But these sayings have more piquancy than objective truth. Christianity survived, and not Gnosticism, because the former was the fittest -- immeasurably, nay infinitely, so. Gnosticism died not by chance, but because it lacked vital power within itself; and no amount of theosophistic literature, flooding English and German markets, can give life to that which perished from intrinsic and essential defects. It is striking that the two earliest champions of Christianity against Gnosticism -- Hegesippus and Irenaeus -- brought out so clearly the method of warfare which alone was possible, but which also alone sufficed to secure the victory in the conflict, a method which Tertullian some years later scientifically explained in his "De Praescriptione". Both Hegesippus and Irenaeus proved that Gnostic doctrines did not belong to that deposit of faith which was taught by the true succession of bishops in the primary sees of Christendom; both in triumphant conclusion drew up a list of the Bishops of Rome, from Peter to the Roman bishop of their day; as Gnosticism was not taught by that Church with which the Christians everywhere must agree, it stood self-condemned. A just verdict on the Gnostics is that of O. Gruppe (Ausführungen, p. 162): the circumstances of the period gave them a certain importance. But a living force they never were, either in general history or in the history of Christendom. Gnosticism deserves attention as showing what mention dispositions Christianity found in existence, what obstacles it had to overcome to maintain its own life; but "means of mental progress it never was".

J.P. ARENDZEN
Catholic Encyclopedia

Answer 10

Because the roman catholic church has succeeded in stamping them out. And since then we've been stuck with a version that the Emperor Constantine, a polytheist himself, has shoved down western Europe's throat.

Just think about this: If it weren't for "Charles the Hammer" Martel, you'd be a Muslim.