With all due respect, William Powell, the canon was NOT decided at the Council of Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas was not excluded because it was a "fifth" gospel. The Gospel of John is not a "synoptic" gospel and your statement that the four gospels were decided upon because of the number 4 sounds quirky to me too.Where, may I ask, did you obtain your information?
It sounds like you are so sure of yourself. I was recalling what I have read and seen on the subject and as soon as I find my reference sources I would be glad to pas them on. I did not make up the following as you suggested.
The more I read of the early Church movement the more and more I think that we are only told what they the Church wants us to believe. I apologies if don't look to the Church as my authority on this matter. I have no faith in any Church that deviates and suppresses the truth. The following is some examples of what I am talking about but I don't expect you to believe what I am saying.
From the book, Honest to Jesus by Robert W. Funk;
Marcion, a wealthy shipowner who organized his own Christian sect, gathered into his Bible only those scriptures that supported his theological position. After coming to Rome from Pontus in Asia Minor (ca 140-150), Marcion promulgated a collection of "scriptures" consisting of the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul, all heavily edited. The lesson was not lost on the later church. Both Marcion and the Church excluded books if they were deemed to deviate from desirable doctrine or practice. Marcion is also know to have taken scissors and paste to the documents he chose, He cut out parts of Luke and the Pauline letters that he didn't like. We do not know how often that same approach was used prior to the fixing of the text in the fourth and fifth centuries.
It is well known that Irenaeus, a heresy hunter who flourished towards the close of the second century in Gaul, insisted on the fourfold gospel. His argument - that since there were four winds and four cardinal directions there should be four gospels - was specious, of course.
The Gospel of John is not a "synoptic" gospel
I stand to be corrected on this point. The first 3 gospels are what they refer to as the "synoptic" gospels and the book of John the spiritual gospel.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, and through him were all things made." These words of the opening prologue of the fourth gospel provide a clue to the nature of this work: it stands apart from the three synoptic gospels. It has often been called the "spiritual gospel" because of the way that it portrays Jesus.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmjohn.html
The Gospel of Thomas was not excluded because it was a "fifth" gospel.
I never said that the Gospel of Thomas was the fifth Gospel but that there was a number of Gospel accounts written:
Early Christian communities produced many gospels. One was the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which Mary is regarded as a disciple, a leader of a Christian group. Another early Christian text known as the Gospel of Truth, reflects on the teachings of Jesus, but does not talk about his death and resurrection; and the Gospel of Thomas contains only sayings attributed to Jesus.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmemergence.html
I hope this has answered some of your questions. This is just a bit that I have turned up. I will post more as I come across the information.
Will
"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."
Mark Twain
