Orthodox Christianity teaches one must accept Jesus to be saved. Few Christians can explain what exactly one “saved” from. Rather than to discuss what “saved” means, what does it mean to accept Jesus or to believe in Jesus? Jesus died about 2000 years ago. He is not here to speak for himself. The only available means a person in the 21st century has to hear about Jesus is by the testimony of others. This testimony is transmitted either by word of mouth, a minister or pastor, books, radio, internet, etc. None of these sources had contact with Jesus. Using the Bible as the primary source opens more questions. There is no agreement among the churches on the interpretation on Christian scripture. If there were there wouldn’t be so many churches. Then the problem of authenticity of the Bible comes up. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books. The early church fathers chose what books are in and what books are out. How can we trust their decision? Who were these men? Then the problem of authorship of these 27 books comes up. Many of the authors of these books are anonymous. Scholars are not in agreement on who wrote them. Then there is the problem of the authenticity of the subject matter itself. We can’t ask the authors because they are long dead and we don’t know who they are anyway. Added to the mix are other books that didn’t make the cut. How can anyone know the Gospel of Thomas is is not authentic? Not only is Christianity diverse but there are many other religions across the planet. It would seem Christianity is a crapshoot, a gamble.
When you wrote "Orthodox Christianity," I thought you'd meant the Orthodox Church.
Anyway, what you describe is Christianity from a Protestant perspective. Until the sixteenth century, there were primarily two flavors of Christianity: eastern, or "Orthodox" Christianity, and western, or "Latin" Christianity, which later became known as "Roman Catholicism." Except for belief in the papacy, the nature of hell, and a few other minor details, these two versions of Christianity are essential identical; both adhere to tradition in the form of sacraments and apostolic succession, and neither has an "accept Jesus to be saved" mentality, which is actually a 19th century American Evangelical Protestant concept.
My point is that, if you look at things objectively, Protestantism--which comprises over 99% of all Christian branches--can be discarded as an absurdity due to its novelty and its relativity in doctrine (among other reasons). This leaves us with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I've studied Christian history for many years, and, in my opinion, if Christianity
is true, only the Orthodox Church can claim to be the legitimate continuation of Christ's religion.
Regarding the Gospel of Thomas and other non-canonical books: First of all, there are different scriptural canons. The Protestants have less books than Catholics. The Catholics have less books than the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Ethiopians have less than the Armenians. So on and so on and so on. So which Bible are we talking about here? Second, the reason why the four canonical gospels are preferred over any other is because (a) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the earliest written and (b) were the only gospels universally venerated throughout Christendom. The early Christians didn't arbitrarily chose their books; before any councils declared "official" canons, there were plenty of Christian writers who had offered canons based on universality and tradition, and these canons were largely consistent with each other and with modern biblical canons.
