The real religion?

[SteveII]

The Matthew, Mark and John editors compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named. The author of Luke/Acts was not an eyewitness either but set about to write and orderly account--including speaking to eyewitnesses. 

Most scholars do not think Thomas the aposle wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Additionally, the early church did not think was an accurate list of sayings because it has at least 31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings. 

Peter, James and John are all eyewitnesses and all wrote books of the accepted NT canon. 

Which parts do you think is just me saying "believe what I say" :

1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two pieces of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus. 
2. From your link, we also have documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death. 
3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. More evidence for what people believed to be true. 

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events. 

These facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history.

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.