Ok I don't know if anyone wants to have a religious debate but the Gnostic Gospels are a collection of writings about the teachings of Jesus, written around the 2nd century AD. They include three books one of them being the gospel of Mary Magdelene. Most mainstream Christians don't except these writings but people who oppose the christian religions take these as evidence to show that jesus was nothing more then just a man and not the son of god due to the difference between these gospels and the ones in the bible itself. Me question is where does everyone stand on this issue and why?

The Gospels that were accepted into the Bible were written well within the lifetime of witnesses of Jesus' life and ministry. All who wrote these gospels were either witnesses, or based their writing entirely on the testimony of these witnesses. And, they had accountability. If they wrote something wrong, their work was out in the open, so if they got something wrong, there were plenty of people to step up and correct them. Regardless of what people like to say, ALL of the Gospels were written during the lifetime of both the witnesses and attributed writers.

The Gnostic 'gospels' however, were written in the third century A.D. Well after anyone whose name was attributed to the works could possibly be alive, or any witnesses could be left to step up and offer correction.

We have the canonical Gospels, pretty much word for word as they were written on the ancient scrolls. However, anyone will see when they pick up a copy of the Gnostics, they are full of gaps, filled with [insertions that seem like they'd be accurate, but not really sure if the text actually said that.]

The canons are reliable. The Gnostics are not. It's historically based, and my reasoning and evidence are sound. You don't even have to be a Christian to know that the Gnostic gospels are historically inapplicable to the life of Jesus. You just have to have a basic knowledge of this area of history.

Yes but recent carbon dating of the original pages of the gospel of mary dates it back to the life of jesus so how can Christians say that the work in that gospel is not sound proof that there was something going on that wasn't in the original gospels. Further more if you read the gospels and pretty much and part of the bible the book is very sexist very often putting down women, for example the name Lucifer cames from the name Lucifera another name for Venus who during the greek period was the goddess of knowledge for women therefore when the bible was written the name lucifera was thought as evil since women were not thought worthy enough to obtain knowledge and was warped into Lucifer the most evil thing in the whole Christian religion.

I'm not going to bother further debating with you. Your arguments are pulled stale from the media and popular opinion, neither of which bother to place any actual research under their belt. Research this a bit closer, then perhaps we can have a discussion.

Actually what he's saying is perfectly viable and it's a worthy debate. There is alot questionable about Christianity to be honest.

What he says about Lucifer's name origins is true.

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light bearer", derived from lux, lucis "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring". It's a Roman astrological term for "morning star", the planet Venus. And Venus is the Roman Goddess of Love.

Lily, no offense or anything, and most people can agree with me, I've noticed you shy away from debates, when there is the possibility of you being proved false.
Alexander, is stating his facts clearly, and in a mature manner, I see no problem in his responses.
Step up, and face the fact that you may not be entirely correct.

Thank you very much everyone I was born a Christian and was one for fifteen years until I realized that I didn't quite understand why I was believing in something that had no facts behind it so I started doing research and found out that there are alot more facts and scientific backing to not believe in God then there is to believe. I then asked myself a life altering question "Do I want to waste my life putting all my faith into something that might in the end turn out to be nothing but a 2000 year old scam meant to scare and control people or do I want to develop my own morals and live my life how I see fit living it for all it's worth before I die?". I chose the second then finding the religion I am in now Luciferianism which has no worship of any kind but instead strives towards the understanding of the world and the pursuit of knowledge, the goal being to gain as much knowledge of the world before your time is up in this life.

I personally believe that organized religion is a sickening thing that does more harm than good. I respect anybody's religion - I mean, go you for following what you believe. But I don't appreciate it being forced on me, which is why alot of my religious friends see me as hostile. I also have a deep dislike for the over-decoration of the Catholic denomination, and in general most of the people I've ever met who are Catholic are... well, rude... If I was forced into a world where I had to be a Christian I would choose Protestant. Props Henry VIII.

However, I do believe there is something, which for consistancy's sake I call God. But I don't pray, or classify myself as Christian or any other Religion in this world. It's a very personal thing to me, and I worship in my own way.

What's the opinion of Satanism around here? I have good friends who are Satanists and after browsing the Satanic Bible (out of curiousity) I don't understand why they're so "evil", or why we consider them so. They don't get on their knees and scream "Hail Satan!", they don't go around sacrificing virgins (contrary to popular belief), and their main belief is pretty much this: Free will.

"..small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies."

One of my favourite quotes comes straight from the Enochian Keys:

"Be friendly unto me [...] for I am the same."


NOTE: The Satanism which I happen to be referring to in my post is LaVeyan Satanism, not to be confused with Theistic Satanism.