New Testament or the Gospels?

Granted there are gospels in the new testament, but then there are gospels that are not in the newtestament as well. I'll go ahead and say that I am a "Christian", for lack of a better word. Even so I see no reason whatsoever to take any non-gospel parts of the New testament as the word of God. Now I understand the history of the book itself, and how it came to be, that it (all of it) is imprinted upon numerous cultures and societies as being the word of God. However, for someone who follows (or tries anyhow) the Gospel description of Christ and his teachings there should be no logical reason at all to even consider the non-gospel part of the New Testament to be the word of God. Furthermore, there is much more reason for the followers of Christ to see the non-Biblical Gospels as being the word of God. Yet as is probably obvious just the opposite is the case, folks believe in the non-gospel parts of the NT, but do not believe in the non-biblical gospels, generally speaking. Again, I realize that the initial reasons for this are cultural and historical.

I have a question for other Christinas here. What is your opinion of the whole situation, and how do you view the non-Biblical gospels vis-a-vis the non-gospel parts of the New Testment?

 

Except that the canonical books were written by his immediate followers (the Apostles). Their words and actions (specifically actions) vindicated their position as having authority. Why would we *not* believe what they wrote? Peter's shadow passed over the sick and they were healed. He was also one of Christ's closest disciple. Why would we not pay attention to what he wrote (or put his seal of approval on)? The same holds true for John. Paul might have the hardest time, but he still had recognized apostolic authority. That is why we listen to them.

And logical. Why would I believe a book about a man written 100 years after he lived by someone who didn't know him over a book written less than 50 years after he died by someone who did know him? Furthermore, the non-canonical gospels smack of gnosticism and gnostic influences that arose in that area in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The non-canonical gospels have *never* recieved the overwhelming support that the Four Gospels have. Nor are any of the Pauline Epistles doubted. There is so much *more* historical evidence for the authenticity of the Pauline letters over the non-canonical gospels, one wonders why there is even a question like this asked.

The best non-canonical gospels suffer from late dates and writing styles that make it very hard to date them to the point where they might have been written by those whose names they bare. Furthermore, the non-canonical gospels contain material that is contradictory to that found in the far more stable and supported canonical gospels. As such, the weaker must bend to the stronger. These books do not sit on equal ground. There is much more support for the canonical gospel's authenticity than there is for the non-canonical books. The same is true for the non-gospel canonical books vs the non-canonical gospels.

 

Revelations left me with far more questions than ever...

I never REALLY liked the Epistles, but it gives a good look into how the early churches might have been run (I say might because people tend to put their spin on things, and for specific scenerios). Still, I think they are useful, but you need to know how to weed through the things that only apply at the time...

I do find the Infancy Gospel of Thomas interesting, but it was written (the earliest manuscript found) around the 7th or 8th century, so long after even the gnostics...The gnostics confuse the heck out of me and I find them useless (personally). I agree with Alshrad's comment on the date of authorship and how they were written much after the time of Christ.

 

Some of the "new" gospels are more useful than others, certainly some were written quite late and by the Gnostics, but some of them may have been earlier or based on earlier manuscripts. And as far as the Gnostics, they have some interesting ideas but I don't agree that all the world is totally evil, and I don't share the belief in a personified diety.

That said, I liked the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip is alright, and this new Judas one sounds interesting (haven't read it yet). I always disliked/ignored the epistiles, especially those of Paul, but really all of them. Most of the time it seems like the apostles never quite "got it," that they were students, adept ones, but never masters like Jesus. So, while there are some interesting things in the epistles, I find the Gospels much more useful, since they supposedly tell what Jesus was saying and doing. Still, even there you have to wonder how authentic it is. Corruptions has seeped into the bible, and the Gospels do not all agree on things.
I'm not a Christian though, so my viewpoint of Jesus is definitely different.

 

I have been thinking the same thing, only about the 4 gospels, not including gnostic text. Pay close attention to most church's structure and doctrine and you will se it is based on the post-gospel NT, ESPECIALLY Paul's writtings. Paul never even speant time with jesus (except his conversion), yet they take more of his teachings than Christ! If you just look at the gospels a new light is shed on all stuff, including salvation. I think that the picture the gospels seem to paint of salvation is that Jesus came to save us all, and we will all be saved through Him. "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" not "Father, show them what they are doing is sin so they will ask you for forgiveness."