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.
Well the material is taken out of the context of the New Testament so yes, in that respect, it's old. But the so-called 'Gospel of Q' is a mere academic hypothesis first posited by Herbert Marsh in 1801 and ergo is NOT that old.
I don’t believe in the Nicene Creed.
Too bad: it's the perfect succinct summa of authentic orthodox Christianity.
>> 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). <<
You do know that there really isn’t a “Q” gospel? You do know that the possibility of a “Q” gospel was put to rest decades ago, when scholars had to concede that the gospels were first-generation, right? You do know that the Jesus Seminar folks are the only ones who seriously discuss the “Q” gospel in the last forty years, right?
You do know that gnostics believed that they could discern events they did not see by using numerology and occult practices, right? You do know that the gnsotic religion predated Christ by centuries, and only sought to pre-empt the new religion, right? You do know that gnosticism was Satanic, holding that the Judeo-Christian God messed up Satan’s plan, right? You do know that gnostics disavowed sexual relations altogether, and made a sacrament out of starving themselves together, right? (You can find a trace of this in this gospel’s Mary’s insistence that she has become a man.)