The real religion?

[brewer]

I'm not a NT or other gospel scholar. Just saying, they were written around the same time, in the same manor (second hand) about the same subject(s). Other than the NT gospels being canonized years later, how do they differ in origin? Couldn't  all the arguments you've given for the NT gospels also be applied for the acceptance/belief for the other gospels?

Written around the same time? No, they were not. So, the authors were certainly not eyewitnesses nor knew any eyewitnesses. Also, the content of the gnostic and later "gospels" contain a different theme and message than the period canonical books.

From what I'm reading they don't even know who wrote some of the NT, they are just attributed to. According to wiki/new testament (According to many (if not most) critical scholars, none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses). John (not author) Matthew (copies of copies, no chance of original accuracy) Luke (written like a 3 part play) It sounds like that argument does not hold wine.

I don't care if they contain a different theme or message. You did not use that in any prior position.

Thomas didn't know jesus? Written as early as 40 AD? NT dates from 50 to 150. Peter didn't know jesus? James didn't know jesus?

I think the the early churches and people supported/believed them. Isn't that one of your supporting positions for the NT?

You have done nothing to support your position(s). Just another believe what I say theist. Stop wasting our time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament