[Antoninus]

The Gnostic Gospels, one of the sources for these oddball theories about Jesus, are contemporaneous with the writings that became the Christian Canon. The Gospel of Mary is especially interesting, in my opinion. So, one set of old writings becomes "true" while the other is "false"

Uh, yeah. What do you think they did to decide? Flip a coin? Scriptural scholars who were conversant with the original documents and languages on a level unmatched even by the most acclaimed modern linguists went through every writing with a claim to cannonical status with a fine-toothed comb. Those which were rejected usually were for a very strong reason, ie., they contained error, falsehood, or were not actually written by one of the Apostolic fathers.

In truth, the core of the Christian Canon--the 4 Gospels and the letters of St. Paul--were settled very early on. If you actually read the non-canonical books, it's fairly obvious why they were excluded. Jesus most likely didn't turn a bully into a toad, no matter what Anne Rice seems to think.

[Kenny Bunk]

The steady, "apochrypha-apochrypha-apochrypha" of Anne's powerful Electric Word Processor ominously began to sound a tortured,
"apochrypha-queep-apochrypha-queep."

[ArGee]

Those which were rejected usually were for a very strong reason, ie., they contained error, falsehood, or were not actually written by one of the Apostolic fathers.

Some, like I believe the Gospel of Thomas, were known forgeries.

Dan Brown and Dan Rather would get along very well, I think. Shalom.