There were many accounts written by Jesus. Some written sooner than others, and some which had more direct connection to the apostles than others.
One of the first problems facing the christian community was how to define the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ.
The christians believed he was fully God, and fully human, and that both of these natures were "good" or "perfect."
Gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies that posed as semi-christian belief but also held beliefs contrary to christianity.
The early christians did not consider gnostics to be christians because of their erroneous beliefs considering the nature of God's creation, and the human/divine nature of Christ.
An early bishop, Ireneaus, was aware of this gospel of Judas, and described it as heretical - incompatible with christian faith.
I would compare it to how mainstream jews feel about Kabbalah.
Anyways, the gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel, just as the gospel of Thomas and Mary are also. They share the same themes that the early christians considered to be heresy. They are not christian writings.
"There were many accounts written by Jesus"
whoops!
That should say "about Jesus" not "by Jesus"
Thank you for your reply. But you jump ahead of my question, I'm afraid. You speak in terms of "the Christians" believed...but I would more expect you to declare yourself as one or not.
Myself, I am one who questions anything I have not seen with my own eyes. I have been to many churches and I still question the authority of those who profess to know the intention and interpretation of the writings of our human history.
If these texts are not "Christian writings", does that disqualify them from consideration as human history?