So, men decided which beliefs would be heresy and which would not. And you chose to believe those men.<quoted text>
It's not a matter of believing men over Jesus. It's a matter of believing the correct material. While the gnostic gospels do paraphrase SOME (emphasis mine) of what Jesus said, they're not consistent with the canonical gospels from the perspective of historical credibility. Simply put, the early church fathers (prior to the Council of Laodicea) were concerned that what was in the Bible was either written by eye-witnesses, or by people who had access to eye-witnesses. The gnostic gospels just don't match up. Both you and I can go through history books about the American Revolution (to use your own example from an earlier post)and write down all the quotes of George Washington, and Marquis de Lafayette, and others, but that's all it would be. If we want to really know what happened at the Battle of Yorktown, we would need to look at letters and battle reports written by participants, or letters written by those who knew the participants and accurately recorded their stories. This is how historical research is conducted.
Regarding the early start of Christianity, it was growing rapidly. Competing movements and groups had to keep up, and the easiest way to do this was to copy some of Christianity's beliefs and merge it with their own. This is where the gnostic gospels originated. That's why the Council of Laodicea rejected the gnostics as heresies. Even the 2nd century Palestinian Jews recognized the heresies of the gnostic writings. They surely considered both Christianity and Gnosticism to be heresies, but the gnostics were treated then about as seriously as we treat the supermarket tabloids today.
Yes or no?