Comment: There is a difference between literalism and letterism.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If you want to take a literal (see in situ)

There is a difference between literalism and letterism.

There is a difference between literalism and letterism. You seem to promote letterism. Learn more about it here under the letterism section: http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretation_of_the_Bible

Your understanding of the history of canonization seems lacking.
How did you come to the conclusion that writings which were never recognized as scripture by the Christian church were 'lost' gospels? How did you come to the conclusion that the canonization of biblical texts was based on politics, when the criteria for canonization included that they were texts already in consistent use by christian churches. Canonization was not a decision to make a 'final product', it was merely a recognition of what was already considered scripture by Christian churches. The ante-nicean church fathers quoted Scripture extensively. These were people who were students of the Apostles hand picked by Jesus, and students of those students, and so on. You can reconstruct just about the entire new testament from early patristic quotations prior to the council of Nicea; which testifies to the accuracy of the canon we have today. The so-called 'lost' gospels you mention are mostly gnostic gospels and blatant forgeries. If you read the Bible, and then read those other books, you should see the difference. The fact that they directly contradict widely accepted scriptures only adds to the fact that they were never scripture to begin with.