In fact the writers of the New Testament and the Apostles themself, rejected the new gospel (as you call it) when it was presented to them, initially.
It was time and history that allowed the tested text to emerge. Not even they decided what was attributable and acceptable. They simply assisted by putting into logical fashion and in writing what everyone already knew to be the case
Its not, what should the content or teaching of the Gospel be, but what actually emerged, how did that happen and why.
The answer is a simple logical one. Sayings that were known to be from Jesus and writings from the Apostles were immediately and forever stamped with approval of time and history itself.
I'd like to see that stamp. History is written by the victors, or so they say.
Are you that unaware of Christian history that you believe that the accepted books were approved by people who actually heard Jesus speak? If that is not your position, do you accept that, over the first few centuries A.D., the various early Christian sects argued their positions and submitted varying scriptures which would be accepted or rejected several generations after any contemporary of Jesus might have existed? Or are you so unaware of human nature to believe that the councils of people who approved the standard canon(s) of text were not at all influenced by their own wills, experiences, desires, positions of power, desires for power, military might, etc? This power play by early Christians and the authorities that buried any "heretical" texts and persons is why newly discovered gospels or other texts are important. It allows us to examine the texts for reasons why early Christians and the powers that be might have wanted them to be suppressed. It allows us to ask more informed questions about the state of affairs during that time and I would think that fundamentalist Christians (especially Protestants) would want to examine scriptures untouched by centuries of translation, corruption and politics and evaluate for themselves what really happened and who Jesus really was, because the texts that have survived, thus far, are the ones that established the Catholic and Orthodox churches and not very many texts survived the purges of those establishments. Can you name any NT texts currently in use by Protestant churches that were not part of the RCC or other Orthodox churches? Can you tell us why the Protestant Bible (by and large) has books removed, but not older ones added? Were those original councils wrong?
To me, this seems, on your part, to be the equivalent of the texts burned at the Library of Alexandria, which might overthrow our understanding of the ancient world, being discovered in a sealed vault and being dismissed because they overthrow our understanding of the ancient world. Wouldn't that be rather silly and arrogant?
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2
