There is nothing interesting about this. Gnosticsm is not new to Christianity. It flourished well in the second century giving rise to many spurious gospels like the gospel of Peter, Philip, mary magdalene etc. All of these are fakes and their authenticity can never be proved and they cannot be trusted for any valuable historical information. Contrary to this the four Biblical gospels were written in the first century just with in a few years/decades after Christ. They have more reliable historical information compared to all the others.
RE:Gnostic gospels
by Ross Bagley on Apr 07, 2006 11:50 PM Permalink
But the four gospels that were chosen by the first biblical compilers were chosen because the differences between them were less troubling and easier to explain away than other gospels. Authorship of the four biblical gospels also occured between 50ad and 250ad, which places this new gospel into the exact same time frame as the other "acceptable" gospels.
People who are denying the historical validity of this document are pretending that one group of stories that "kind of" agree with each other are significantly different from other stories that are more different. The bible is a group of historical texts written by many different authors with many different agendas, and the original compilers of the bible picked and chose the ones they liked the best. Nobody actually knows what happened because the politics of the day were too important to leave to the simple truth.
Everything else is wishful thinking (but fun wishful thinking). If you believe otherwise, you have to believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour periods about six to ten thousand years ago. Which is simply false.
