The central tenets of Gnosticism are the polar opposite of the central tenets of Christianity. And no one here has stated the “equal to or greater importance than what you read in the Bible” that you refer to. None of the apostles had the Bible though. And none of Jesus’ early first century followers had the Bible either. The Bible didn’t even exist until the 4th century. But there were a lot of Jesus followers in the meantime...and their relationship with the Savior was likely just as valid as yours is.
Occasionally you seem to forget Doc Rocket's helping us with some historical facts. Or you just to reject them.
Originally Posted By antlers
If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.
Answered by Doc Rocket
Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.
However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.
The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.
So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.
The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.
So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.
Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.
Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.
So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.
And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
