The Gnostic Gospels

shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?

Originally posted by generalissimo
shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?

I think they should. Gnosticism is one form of christianity that makes sense to me.
(though I haven't read them in a while)

Originally posted by generalissimo
shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?

Yes, along with the 6th and 7th books of Moses and the book of Jasher.

i read some where that they are mischievous and prone to error

Originally posted by generalissimo
shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?

Well, no, they do not contribute to the entirety of the NT. Gnostic literature in fact denies many tenets of the NT. Docetist writings, for example, deny the corporeality of Jesus. Some texts also promote very unhealthy spirituality. I would not recommend The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla as canonical because its staunch insistence on total celibacy. Not even strict Catholics could accept that.

Originally posted by generalissimo
shouldn't they be included in the bible considering they could contribute to the entirety of the new testament?

Aren't there enough books in the Bible already for you?!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, no, they do not contribute to the entirety of the NT. Gnostic literature in fact denies many tenets of the NT. Docetist writings, for example, deny the corporeality of Jesus. Some texts also promote very unhealthy spirituality. I would not recommend The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla as canonical because its staunch insistence on total celibacy. Not even strict Catholics could accept that.

Yes, Im aware some of those writings are heretical, but surely some of them could be included, the gospel of thomas for example.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

John 21:25

There I imagine our many other accounts.

Manny

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yes, Im aware some of those writings are heretical, but surely some of them could be included, the gospel of thomas for example.

So if you wrote a gospel would you like it included?

Originally posted by whodey
So if you wrote a gospel would you like it included?

what do you mean by this?

I didn't write any of the gnostic gospels.

I've always been a bit baffled by this issue. We all know that the bible is a collection of translations of ancient writings and that at various times various individuals have selected what to include... right? Why all the reverence then?

Originally posted by generalissimo
what do you mean by this?

I didn't write any of the gnostic gospels.

But you easily could do so. So if you were prone to do so, should it be included?

Originally posted by whodey
But you easily could do so. So if you were prone to do so, should it be included?

You're not making much sense.

Originally posted by generalissimo
You're not making much sense.

If you call yourself a "Christian", could you not then write your own gospel? If so, should it be included in the Bible?

Originally posted by whodey
If you call yourself a "Christian", could you not then write your own gospel? If so, should it be included in the Bible?

I dont believe my "gospel" should have the same importance as the gnostic gospels considering:

a- I wasn't around when Jesus did his stuff.
b- My account wouldn't be based on anything.
c- did I mention i wasn't around milennia ago?