Dear Ghoussssssssss
My problem with the salvation thing is that Christians (and other religions) say you can ONLY be saved by believing what they believe.
This is an insult to an inquiring mind and a negation of what makes us human. Many first century gods weee considered "saviours". Jesus as a "saviour" is more complex because it is entwined with the Jewish "Messiah" who was to be a literal "saviour", a leader, a king -if you like. Paul changed this brilliantly to the idea of a saviour of your soul (another Hellenistic concept).
It appears strange to me that if you live an exemplary life doing good things to all you are still condemned to nothingness (or worse) because you didn't agree with Paul, free choice or not.
Don't take this as me not recognising and appreciating the wonderful moral roadmap that Jesus of the Gospels preached. This is why I read my bible.

Pricillian,
You do not believe the gospels give a true picture of Jesus as they were edited by Paul. So do not quote something you do not hold as authority with credibility.

So I am gnostic according to you! Absolute nonsence! I recognise the very humanity of Jesus if you had bothered to read posts on other subjects.
* Conceived at the instigation of Zecharias; father of John, to be a deliverer for Israel. Zecharias was murdered at the altar for refusing to disclose the whereabouts of John and Jesus. A very natural conception from the seed of David implanted by artificial imsemination.
* Jesus was resurrection in the very same body that bore the wounds of crucufixion - no organic change.

Gnostics believed in a lesser being and son of the Supreme God who was the god who created and adminstered the earth; known in Job 1 - 2 as the satan [and in the text as El] the enemy of man and administrator of the mortal curse. I suppose you believe in such a being? However I like the honourable Job am a strict monotheist.

Philo
I do not claim Paul "edited" the gospels
I do not claim Paul "wrote" the gospels
I do not think Paul knew anything about any gospels.
I do not think Paul would have cared less about the gospels concerning Jesus' life because an historical Jesus was not his primary concern.
I do claim that the gospels we have were chosen because they did not conflict with what Irenaeus thought was Paul's theology. i.e they were kosher, the others were heretical.

I do not understand anything you have written about Gnosticism. You must be talking about a different Gnosticism to that which I had in mind.

There are several threads to Gnosticism.
1. Persian Zoroastrianism with roots in ancient Babylonian religion; taught there were two seperate opposing gods one for good and one for evil.
2. Zoroastrianism influence on the Qumran communities
2. Greek philosophy of 'gnosis' had influence on the Christian Church in the 2nd century.
3. 3rd century Christian congreations adopted ideas from the Greek philosophies
4. The 4 th century mistic writers and Coptic books

The Jewish Alexandrian historian Philo Judaeus in the 1st century tried to interpret the Hebrew scriptures in the light of Platonic thought and held the logos as the firstborn of God and chief of angels. He taught the pre-existence of the soul of man and that man must break the controll of the flesh to rise to a vision of God. John in his gospel uses the language of Gnostics but not the theology of to present his case for Jesus.

The diversity of Gnosticism is a diverse as any world view today.

Though when most talk of gnosticism today they refer to the 3rd century influence of Hellenistic gnosticism on the Church. When I speak of Gnosticism I refer to the influence of Zoroastrianism, as this was contemporary with the NT writers. People like Thomas and Philip has sympathies for the gnostics; these two Jesus had to correct [see John 14] to demonstrate God was incarnate [revealed in man].

Now this I understand.

I am about to get hold of Elaine Pagel's books the "Gnostic Gospels" and "The Gnostic Paul" and she what she has to say.
Whether I am right or wrong about a gnostic Paul the church faithful never get to hear anything of what you have just said. No wonder an ignorant dill like Dan Browh gets an undeserved airing in the community most of the faithful have no idea where or from whom their belief systems originated.

Am I Gnostic?
I personally do not view matter as evil it has no conscience, it is a good creation of God. The human body is not evil or created by an evil or lesser god.

There is only one God and the universe bears the evidence it is the mind of only one unified mind not two opposing minds as Zoroaster believed or Budda in yin and yan. The only conflicting mind in it is the mind of man and his behaviour who acts against the good principles of behaviour, design and function.

I do not believe in a spiritual being called Satan, in every case in the NT where satan is used there is a human involved who opposed Jesus Christ or the followers. One particular hostile opponent of the Church who lived in Pergamon [Revelation 2: 13] put to death followers of Christ Jesus.

I agree with Paul in his Colossian letter 2: 16 - 23, who unlike the Gnostics, believes Christ equal the supreme Creator and reconciles all things by being human as evidenced by his death.

Gnostics believed the natural creation was created by a lesser being and Christ was a mystical super human not actually flesh and bones. The apostle John denounces this in his epistle 1 John 4: 1 6