[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Not at all, some of the writings had content that clearly went against the doctrines that eventually became Christianty.

The Gospel of Thomas is one that clearly had a gnostic slant, doesn't teach a physical resurrection, etc..

And the Gospel of Phillip has an obvious lean towards Mary Magdalene being Jesus' wife....although the word 'companion' can be interpreted in other ways.

Is there something wrong with that? No, not to me. But it really wouldn't make any sense to put the Gospel of Phillip into the Bible, and completely stray off the original topic.

You are right that Thomas didn't teach the physical resurrection, but he did mention a spiritual resurrection.

And it may have had the gnostic slant, but that certainly doesn't mean it can be accounted for as a 'gnostic' writing.

It is unique in that it is ostensibly written from the point of view of Didymus Judas Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, and claims to contain special revelations and parables made only to Thomas. It is further unique in that the gospel is no more than a collection of Jesus' sayings and parables, and contains no narrative account of his life, which is something that all four canonical gospels include.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the Gospel of Thomas. I find it every way as interesting as the Bible, but personally I feel the Bible/NT was put together to focus on a single point. The birth, teachings, and death of Jesus Christ, and how it effects Christians.

Adding the Gospel of Thomas would have been straying off topic, and the quote above clearly points out the difference, not in teaching or theology, but in the content between what Thomas supposedly wrote, and what the 4 main gospels contain.

Not knowing who wrote a book didn't stop books from being in the canon, the 4 gospels are all anonymous.

Point taken.