You have misapplied logic. Your claim for historical documentation of NT gospel stories is based on what happened after they came into existence. Just because church leaders believed their truthfulness doesn't mean they are truthful.
I'm saying we need to go where the evidence takes us.
On the one hand we have a a chain of historical evidence that gives us reason to believe the Gospels are 1st century eye witness testimony.
For instance: Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of the apostle John. We have their witings. They affirm what is written in the Gospels.
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and his writings also affirm what is written in the Gospels.
They, along with all other 1st and 2nd century witnesses we have, affirm that the Gospels were 1st century eye witness testimony, and that what we see in them today accurately reflects what was originally in them.
On the other hand, you have no evidence that the gospel of thomas is even a 1st century document, let alone reason to believe it is more true in what it relates than the NT Gospels.
So why should we believe your theory that the gospel of thomas is more true than the NT Gospels, when there is no historical evidence to back up your claim? In fact, all the evidence we do have goes against it. What reason do we have to believe your version of history over that which is preserved in the historical record for us?
If you have evidence that would cause us to believe the historical record about the Gospels is not accurate, I'm happy to hear you out. But don't expect us to take a mere opinion as a historical fact.
It's one thing to say you still aren't convinced the NT is authentic based on the evidence we do have, but it's very hypocritical of you to then claim you have a more accurate version of what happened in history that is not based on any evidence at all.
Where is historical evidence for all of those stories about Jesus miracles, such as being in the wilderness for forty days, walking on water, healing the sick, restoring a dead man, etc.? There is absolutely no evidence!
You're a bit confused here, because you're shifting the topic of the debate from "Which Gospels have the most historical evidence for them being authentic 1st century products of the disciples of Jesus" to "How can we prove what's written in the NT Gospels actually happened?".
That is a debate that can certainly be had, but you must recognize that decrying a lack of historical evidence for the "content" of the NT Gospels does nothing to advance your claim that the gospel of thomas is a more accurate reflection of history than the NT Gospels. Nor does it prove that the gospel of thomas precedes them.
As I pointed out: It is hypocritical for you to attack the NT Gospels for not having enough historical evidence that the content contained within is true, yet then turn around and claim the gospel of thomas is a more truthful historical account of what Jesus said and did - all while having not a stitch of historical evidence to back up such a claim.
You have the choice to doubt whether or not the NT Gospels actually happened as recorded, based on the evidence we have, but you are in no position to claim based on historical evidence that 3rd century texts like the gospel of thomas should be regarded as more authentic than the NT Gospels. All the evidence we have is completely against such a conclusion.
Based on documents from the "Nag Hammadi" discovery, scholarly consensus is Thomas preceded the NT gospels.
Where's your source for the claim that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe thomas preceded the NT Gospels?
Why does Nag Hammadi prove the gospel of thomas preceded the NT Gospels? What are some of the facts and evidences involved?
Do you not actually know any of these details for yourself, or are just repeating what someone in a book told you without question? If the scholarship were as strong and wide as you seem to think it is, then you should have no trouble finding actual evidence to post.
That's what I'm challenging you to provide in support of your claim - direct evidence. You aren't proving anything by repeatedly asserting that thomas preceded the NT Gospels without being able to demonstrate through some evidence why, or how, that could be true.
Based on my study, I agree with scholars conclusion as to the existence of verses in NT gospels from The Gospel of Thomas.
You don't need to be a scholar or a great study to see that the gospel of thomas has taken or reworded many things from the NT Gospels - But that doesn't prove "thomas" preceded the NT Gospels.
That is also exactly the same thing you'd also expect to see in a 3rd century forgery that is trying to pass itself off as an original work.
Where's the evidence to support your claim that the NT Gospels are the ones based off thomas, given that all the historical evidence we do have is against your claim?
Then, there is Gospel Q, which scholars general accept as valid. I listed that reference which you have ignored. Based on scholarly research, there is evidence for the existence of the lost Gospel Q. Scholars have crossed checked Jesus sayings in the gospels and discovered commonalities attributed to one or more prior gospels. The Gospel of Q is the gospel scholars believe to be most likely for NT authors usage. It was lost, but has been discovered in the NT gospels due to diligent research.
I did respond to that briefly, but you ignored my response or didn't understand it.
I'll address it again for you, but I first have to point out: bringing up Q doesn't actually help advance your original claim about the gospel of thomas, because in order for thomas to begin to even be considered as a Q related document you would actually have to be able to evidence a historical antiquity and authentic apostalic pedigree of "thomas" that is at least on par with the authentic than the NT Gospels - but you can't.
As for Q:
Q is a theory, a hypothetical. It's not a proven fact.
It's also a theory that is based on certain assumptions. Assumptions which cannot be proven, and which we have no reason to really believe. But some take these assumptions for granted without evidence.
Examples of unproven assumptions:
1. The assumption that the Gospels could not have been single eyewitness documents. Where's the proof that they couldn't be? This leads to a cascade of other assumptions, such as the belief that if something is repeated more often then it must be older.
2. The assumption that the story of Jesus was added to and expanded over time. Which also leads to the assumption that the shortest gospels must be the oldest.
Again, where's the historical evidence of that happening? We don't actually see it. We don't have malformed copies of the NT Gospels that look like they are works in progress, communicating different information or conclusions about Jesus than what we have today. When we find pre-nicea Gospels or epistles in history (whether through an author's reference or physical copies), they are basically the same as what we have now, minus a handful of sentences or words here or there depending on the manuscript (but nothing that's going to change any point of theology).
We don't see any kind of evolution in this regard reflected in the writings of the early church. We see from the earliest witnesses of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and other documents like the Didache, that the Gospels we have contain the same information about Jesus that they had access to. We don't have any historical evidence of there being an evolution within the church of who Jesus was or what He did.
All this supposed evidence for the evolution of the Gospel is not actually evidence at all, but are people's theoretical speculations where they look at the NT Gospels and try to decide what they think must have been the oldest parts - based on presumptions which we have no historical reason to believe must be true to begin with.
From those unproven assumptions, they try to reconstruct what they think the original might have been. But their "reconstructions" are meaningless if the assumptions overlying them are untrue.