Missing gospels

[boog123]

is it true that there are gospels missing from the bible?

 

[Zenas]

is it true that there are gospels missing from the bible?

Not really. There are several ancient writings that call themselves gospels, e.g., Gospel of Thomas; Gospel of Mary Magdalene; etc. About a year ago scholars discovered a Gospel of Judas Iscariot. However, all these so-called gospels (often called gnostic gospels because of their proclivity for gnostocism) were written in the second century A.D. or later. Thus they automatically lose one of the requirements for being in the canon, i.e., that the author be one of the apostles or someone very close to one of the apostles.

 

[juliamajor]

No-those others so called gospels can be used to give insight into the historical period but not for inspiration.According to catholic-resources.org/bible/(great site) Four Criteria for Canonicity are 1. Apostolic origin" attributed to and?or based on the preaching?teaching of the first generation apostles or closest companions" 2.Universal Acceptance"acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world by the end of the fourth century. 3. Liturgical use"read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper,their weekly worship service. " 4. Consistent message"containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings including the divinity AND humanity of Jesus" Hope it helps

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If those gospels were missing they would not be in print today under the heading of psudegraphia, meaning “false writtings”

 

[Theist]

is it true that there are gospels missing from the bible?

That is absolutely true. During the process of canonizing what we know of as the Bible today, many books were omitted for various reasons.

---

* Some ancient texts were considered authoritative but were dropped before the canon was "closed."
* Some well-regarded books were written too late and/or not believed to be apostolic, so they were not included. Nevertheless some outside books, such as the Didache, are as old or even older than some of the books that made the New Testament.
* Other books were accepted by some Christian communities but not others. Sometimes:
      o they were labeled "heretical" by more powerful Christian groups like Rome
      o they were not popular or known well enough by Greek-speaking Christians 
* Still other books never came close to making it "inside.". In addition to heretical books that were excluded, other books were considered to be too outrageous, even though they were very popular. (These books also tended to be written much later than canonical books)
* A number of books were lost or destroyed.
* Some old writers were never considered as scripture but have historical value; they may be letters, or histories, or stories, or other kinds of records.

---

Clearly there is no doubt that scripture was omitted. The question is do you believe the Church at the time of canonization was infalable?

 

[lsburk]

That is absolutely true. During the process of canonizing what we know of as the Bible today, many books were omitted for various reasons.

---

* Some ancient texts were considered authoritative but were dropped before the canon was "closed."
* Some well-regarded books were written too late and/or not believed to be apostolic, so they were not included. Nevertheless some outside books, such as the Didache, are as old or even older than some of the books that made the New Testament.
* Other books were accepted by some Christian communities but not others. Sometimes:
      o they were labeled "heretical" by more powerful Christian groups like Rome
      o they were not popular or known well enough by Greek-speaking Christians 
* Still other books never came close to making it "inside.". In addition to heretical books that were excluded, other books were considered to be too outrageous, even though they were very popular. (These books also tended to be written much later than canonical books)
* A number of books were lost or destroyed.
* Some old writers were never considered as scripture but have historical value; they may be letters, or histories, or stories, or other kinds of records.

---

Clearly there is no doubt that scripture was omitted. The question is do you believe the Church at the time of canonization was infalable?

At the moment of pentecost the Church was infallible. The other writings that were omitted from canon were found to be non-inspired.

 

[Theist]

At the moment of pentecost the Church was infallible. The other writings that were omitted from canon were found to be non-inspired.

Unfortunately the dates don’t match. The Pentecost supposedly occurred 10 days after the death of Jesus. The Bible we know today was finally canonized over 3 centuries AD. In addition much of the scripture in the New Testament was written very near the end of the 1st century AD, but the scriptures as a whole span multiple centuries.

You can’t say that Pentacost relates to the Bible canonization process at all.

 

[Pons]

Christian groups like Rome

Hmph. Do you mean “local church of Rome” or the “Roman Catholic Church”?

Unfortunately the dates don’t match. The Pentecost supposedly occurred 10 days after the death of Jesus. The Bible we know today was finally canonized over 3 centuries AD. In addition much of the scripture in the New Testament was written very near the end of the 1st century AD, but the scriptures as a whole span multiple centuries.

You can’t say that Pentacost relates to the Bible canonization process at all.

Catholics (and Orthodox) can, because they believe in Apostolic authority (for the NT). Others can’t.

 

[juliamajor]

Ascension-40 days after Easter- Pentecost 50 days…The Canon we accept was written around100a.d. or before. I always wondered about the Didache- but a lot of canonicity is gauged by liturgical use.