[magisterium]

Well, at least you acknowledge Jesus to be divine. But, seriously, are you a "History Channel Christian"? By that I mean, do you take all of the nonsense that cable channel puts out to be a serious presentation of Christianity, where any number of Gnostic writings are supposed to be "lost" or "deliberately removed" from the canon of Scripture? Then know that all of the Gnostic writings were written after the Apostolic Era, and all of the Gnostic sects died out over time and remained extinct until ersatz copiers resurrected their notions in our own day. To the extent that the writings aren't old enough to have been considered "inspired," and the fact that their proponents died out as a movement, that should say something about their genuineness as part of the Scriptural canon.

So it is not "good to have more" writings. This stuff is not Christianity; to insist otherwise is to hopelessly garble the message. Dig deeper. Don't settle for being a mere controvertialist. If you think Jesus was divine, then investigate the criteria for authentic Scripture that the early Church demanded. When you do, you will run away from the idea that the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" is anything other than a book written by people who sought to parallel Christianity, but who were definitely confused enough to be outside the fold entirely.

[hanfei]

It is not clear how old any of the gospels are, though some material (the so-called “Q” material) is undoubtedly old, whether one believes the “Sayings Gospel Q” theory or not. (I don’t, though I posted Q for people to see much of the old material in pristine form).

Early Christianity was quite varied. I don’t believe in the Nicene Creed.

[roamer_1]

When you do, you will run away from the idea that the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" is anything other than a book written by people who sought to parallel Christianity, but who were definitely confused enough to be outside the fold entirely.

BUMP.