I would be careful with specific language. I know what you're trying to say, but it isn't entirely accurate. The Gnostics were, in fact, the first "Christians". Or rather, a better term would be "Hellenized Jews" - because that is exactly what Christians are today. So the Bible does in fact support modern Christianity. Pauline theology is also very Gnostic, to the point where it is clear in Galatians and in Corinthians that Paul is probably speaking to other Christian Gnostics. And it is also important to remember that there was not just one original sect of Christianity (Christians may speculate all they want, but the evidence is very much against this concept) - Christianity has been splintered ever since it originated, probably from Essene thought and practice, which is why John is always considered an Essene and why the Essenes are never talked of in a poor (or any!) manner in the New Testament, even though we know they existed, and were plentiful. And the concept of Heaven and Hell were very well known to the Essenes. In fact, like Paul, they believed in multiple heavens, the resurrection of a soul, dualism, and many other Orphic concepts that Paul seems to be well acquainted with.

Additionally, it is odd that people would try to claim that the Bible does not mimick modern Christianity, when the canonization of the New Testament took several hundred years precisely because the church wanted a canon that fit their dond the four books they chose, whether redacted or not, were the four oldest known to the church at that time, not including Paul's Epistles which were also dated very early (although all dating is speculative). I would shy away from such perspectives. I don't believe they rest on solid ground, and hurt ones arguments against Christianity.

Hehe... Disclaimer:

Rook and I come from exactly opposite sides of the historical fence.  When I delve into history, I'm a social historian -- that is, I'm interested in the common man's life, quite separate from what was happening politically or what the historians were writing about.  Rook takes the approach of reading what people wrote and piecing together the bigger movements in history.

It might seem on the surface that he and I have just disagreed, but that's not the case.  Rook is correct in saying that the modern bible does match the goals of the early church founders.  However, I am also correct in saying that throughout history, the impact of day to day religion has changed with the times, and has not often had a lot to do with what the actual church canon said.

It has also not been uncommon for the church itself to deviate from its own doctrines, as you will see if you read that essay I linked to.

Hehe... ok, maybe the fence is a bad analogy. I suppose a circle is better. Where my study goes Science ----> human nature -----> historical concensus -----> extrapolation of human experience in history, yours is more concerned with actually developing the historical concensus.

In other words, my work is dependent on yours.

 [edit:  Hell, it's all interdependent.  I was just trying to be all analogous...]

    Yeah Rook; darn words; I goofed; What really is Gnostic ? That word is so broadly used. It's like saying gnostics were / are people who have philosophical / religious ideas. So it is safe to say, early christians were gnostic; but from most of what I've read, as when applied to xainity, it seems most often to refer to anti Pauline xainity. ??? Maybe it's just the way I slant my primitive research ???

Gnostic = knowing / Agnostic = not knowing

Gnostics & Agnostics = thinkers, but no concensus about what they believe.

I've read ;

Gnostics = the ideas presented in the dead sea scrolls ..."lable of the [ knowing ] losers" in the formation of [ unknowing] xainity.

Gnostics = liberal

Gnostics = Monism - the metaphysical and theological view that all is ONE, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature.

Gnostics = ridge, Dualistic ; Robert Eisenman advanced the theory that some scrolls actually describe the early Christian community, characterized as more fundamentalist and rigid than the one portrayed by the New Testament.

then I read; The Gnostic Gospels [ and buddha ] by Elaine Pagels http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html According to gnostics, faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few.

then I read; DID YOU KNOW? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/learn.html

then "Church of God? or The Temples of Satan" R.A. Anderson http://oneheartbooks.com/books/misc_titles/temples_of_satan.htm

ETC ETC

~!@#$%^&*() ....... then I start pulling my hair out and screaming "Damn fucking useless words." .... Here's the worst of all , > "G-O-D" <

then I get smashed, then I do same shit all over again .... then I think of buddha and laugh !