The real religion?

[brewer]

So some, not all, of the NT were not written by those attributed to them (unknown author) yet you accept and defend them. Thomas (unknown author) was written as early as 40AD but that you reject that. What if the unknown author "compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named"? Plus, how do you know and prove that your quoted position is even true?  The authors are unknown. You can't possibly know that they followed a particular apostle. And "31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings" makes it not true? The author couldn't include unique material that he learned? He had to be a plagiarist like the authors of Matthew and Luke?

Theme of christianity? Sounds like you're discussion something not completely accurate or trustworthy but close enough for government work.

Wow, underlined. Must make me believe it. Nice effect.

I'm tired of you. Good bye.

I don't understand what you think the Gospel of Thomas not being included in the original canon proves. There are reasons it was not thought to authentic back in the second century.  

The gospels were called "the memoirs of the apostles" in the second century until they became know by the different apostolic communities they originated in. You also seem to think the early church would not have known their origins. Why would the editors name be important if the church new from which community the accounts came from and passed copies around to each other--even as the apostles and/or their immediate followers were still alive?

I understand you wanting to quit this discussion. This whole "Steve would have to accept the gnostic and other non-canonical gospels as truth too" was a silly notion to begin with and even harder to keep defending. I underline because you seemed to be having a problem picking out my main points.

I'll just let you revel in your delusion and move on.