[kingsurfer]

What are your opinions on these extra gospels? I have hear about them but never read them.

[twigs]

I have read some excerpts. What I read is not in any way consistent with the real gospels. I did not find them compelling.

[ColoCdn]

There are numerous gnostic texts available at places like Barnes and Noble. They include numerous 'gospels' and are almost unbelievably pathetic attempts to paint fantasy as religiosity.

The difference between the tone and doctrine of these supposed 'gospels' and the canon of the Bible as we know it is more than significant.

It's like the "Jesus Seminar" on crack.

[Mark in the Old South]

Read Eusebius. He wrote the first history of the Church in the 4th century. Some of these extra gospels are mentioned and dismissed as fairly recent (recent by 4th century standards) heresies. When he wrote the Bible was not a single book as we think of it and he expresses some doubts about some of the books we accept today.

To be included in the Bible a book needed to meet several specific qualifications. I can not remember them all but one was, it had to be compatible with Old Testament works. and doctrinally in agreement with the other Gospels. The Gospel according to Thomas is one example of a book that fails this test completely. It was also written sometime in the second century. A second qualification was it had to be written no later than the apostolic age. (approx 100 AD or earlier).

[HamiltonJay]

There are many books that did not make it through the decision processes of the church to be in the official Bible. I have no doubt that many if not most of them are controversial, they were chosen not to be included for a reason.

Relying on them to prove or disprove faith or orthodoxy would be like relying on international law to determine the constitutionality of something.

[The_Reader_David]

Most, perhaps all, of the extra 'gospels' are gnostic texts, and were rightly ignored by the Church.

Unlike the teaching of the Church, which was public, and included no hidden esoterica, the gnostic 'gospels' were esoteric, and the basis for 'secret' teachings among the gnostic heretics. (Yes, some things in the old days weren't preached to those who weren't catechumens, but this was a matter of security during the persecutions, but even these were public in the sense that the apologists explained them briefly to pagans in an attempt to avert persecutions).

It's not surprising that this manuscript was found in Egypt: Alexandria was the center of Greco-Roman intellectual life, and was a hot bed of one or another heresy (based on either rationanlist or esoteric speculation) for centuries.

[Sybeck1]

1 (888) ASK-HANK

[Mark in the Old South]

You asked this question just to enliven your day didn't you?

Like to stir the pot don't you?
;-}

[Tree of Liberty]

Here's a link to just about every non-cannonical book of which I've ever heard. Hopefully, you'll be able to see the inherent inconsistencies to be able to forensically combat any that might claim they are inspired works.

[Matchett-PI]

"What are your opinions on these extra gospels? I have hear about them but never read them." ~ kingsurfer

You can find out a lot about the early heretics in the church by just going on google. For instance, one of the earliest heretics who lived at the time of the apostle John was Cerinthus. Here is the tip of the iceber of what we find on him, alone:

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 948 for early heretic cerinthus. (0.37 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=early+heretic+cerinthus&btnG=Google+Search

Early History of Millennium Teaching
... reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say, with the heretic Cerinthus.
... But how did the early church regard the doctrine of Cerinthus ? ...
www.scionofzion.com/ehmt.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

[AlGone2001]

"What are your opinions on these extra gospels? I have hear about them but never read them."

We haven't even learned to love each other yet.

We can't handle more text.

Sadly, it would only lead to more division.