I'm not sure it's accurate that the alternative gospels have been "unearthed." We've known about them all along (as far as I know) but have basically ignored them. The reason is that the pre-Nicene Church was already beginning to think they weren't terribly authoritative; Nicaea just made that point of view official. Have you read any of them? It's not too hard to see why they came to be regarded as of minor significance. There are notable exceptions. The Catholic concept of Hell's Harrowing comes not from the canon but the Gospel of Nicodemus. But then again, when you realize that the Harrowing of Hell depends on a very earth-centered (perhaps I should say "physical-universe-centered") view of time, you begin to see that however Christocentric it is, the myth (and I don't use it here to mean something false) the concept is flawed. When you know how the Church developed its view of scriptural authority, you tend to be a little more flexible and possibly less literal. At the same time, I think it provides more confidence that the Holy Spirit really did guide the decision process. Does for me, anyway.
David Moyer Posted: I am a Christian Engineer/Scientist and I have no problem with conflicts between the facts of science (as opposed to some hypotheses of science) and the teachings of scripture. I know literally dozens of other engineers and people with doctorates in technical fields including medicine, veterinary medicine, biology, etc. who also see no conflict. I was once a staunch evolutionist and I could easily teach a high school or community college course on evolution. There are some aspects of evolutionary theory/hypotheses with which I have no quarrel. But nearly the entire field is a matter of hypotheses with very little of it proven by the scientific method, because so little of it is falsifiable. It certainly does not deserve to be classified as a theory- that is a hypothesis that has been tests by real scientific methods so often that almost no one can devise another test that might disprove it. Remember, that scientific hypotheses are not proven, but rather
Comments
Except for a brief glimpse of Thomas, I've not had a chance to read any of the apocrypha ( is that what the non-canonized writings are called?).
In general, I found that Thomas' gospel seemed similar in tone to what I remember from the canonized gospels. I found a few sayings I found completely inscrutable. And I was interested to find new twists on old ideas; for example, that we are supposed to protect our neighbor from harm with the same care we use to protect our own eyes.
I suppose not all of the discarded works are up to this level.