# Gnosticism and The Evolution of Christianity



## jollyroger (Apr 13, 2021)

https://gnosticismexplained.org/

I find the subject of early Christianity fascinating.

Just sharing for the sake of sharing.


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 13, 2021)

The similarities to Jesus and Buddha (or a student of Buddhist teachings) is remarkable.

A bit from the text:

"The proto-orthodox thought of Christ’s teachings as ends in themselves. The Son of God had told people what they should believe and how they should act; what more did anyone need to know? They thought of being a Christian – a follower of Christ – in terms of relatively simple and clear outward criteria. Does a person profess to be a Christian? Is he or she willing to undergo martyrdom? Has he or she been baptized? Does he or she submit to the (proto-orthodox) clergy in his or her beliefs and deeds? If so, then he or she is a Christian.[5]

The Gnostics passionately disagreed. They saw Jesus’s teachings not primarily as ends in themselves, but rather as means to another end: the inner mystical transformation they called “gnosis,” the root of the word “Gnostic.” The whole purpose of Christ’s coming to earth had been to impart gnosis to people by awakening them to their true, divine nature, which had been covered over by the material world and forgotten.[6] In support of these views, they could point to passages such as Luke 17:20-21:

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”[7]​​Edit: Y'alls boy Bart Ehrman has a lot of commentary on this website as well, seems this guy is a prominent figure in religious study, in particular Christianity.​


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 13, 2021)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> The similarities to Jesus and Buddha (or a student of Buddhist teachings) is remarkable.
> 
> A bit from the text:
> 
> ...


“Figure” should be Critic.


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 13, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> “Figure” should be Critic.


I was reading up on this guys bio, and he really has put in the milage before becoming an "agnostic atheist," whatever that is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman


----------



## Spotlite (Apr 13, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> I was reading up on this guys bio, and he really has put in the milage before becoming an "agnostic atheist," whatever that is.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman


No doubt, that he has.


----------



## Israel (Apr 14, 2021)

I am not too shy to say that "from the beginning" of itself the world has endeavored to show it owes nothing to the Word of God.

There appears a whole lot of gain in taking it (Him) down, but which, like the whole of the world, is so precisely temporary as to be infinitely insignificant.


----------



## jollyroger (Apr 14, 2021)

Israel said:


> I am not too shy to say that "from the beginning" of itself the world has endeavored to show it owes nothing to the Word of God.
> 
> There appears a whole lot of gain in taking it (Him) down, but which, like the whole of the world, is so precisely temporary as to be infinitely insignificant.



Do you think the Jesus in the Gnostic texts is a different Jesus then in the fully formed canon we have presently?

The Jesus of the Gnostic teachings has a completely different take on the Beginning, and therefore the Word.

Not implying I take the Gnostic teachings at face value, just saying this early on in the formation of the religion there was a lot of differing of opinion.


----------



## Israel (Apr 15, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Do you think the Jesus in the Gnostic texts is a different Jesus then in the fully formed canon we have presently?
> 
> The Jesus of the Gnostic teachings has a completely different take on the Beginning, and therefore the Word.
> 
> Not implying I take the Gnostic teachings at face value, just saying this early on in the formation of the religion there was a lot of differing of opinion.


To be honest I am quite ignorant about the whole matter of "gnosticism" or even what would qualify among men as so called gnostic texts vs. some other writings. Or what might constitute gnosticism in any contention or differentiation from some other form of "the faith". Or what some might even call the "true faith" to set it up as opposing to gnosticism.

I do believe _this Jesus _who says this:

If you continue in my word then are you my disciples indeed and _you shall know the truth,_ and the truth shall make you free" (Italics mine)

If _that knowing promised_ is in any way eschewed by any, then obviously they account it of no value and will believe no benefit to its pursuance. And I make no claim at any greater nobility of motive (of myself) to any endeavor to "know the truth". I believe if one has any "love of the truth" or any inclination toward it in truth, then that love/desire/motive is only received as gift and not to be confused was something innate or self originating in the man. 

Oh yes, rare would be the man who does not declare his interest in "the truth" or more frankly say "truth does not interest me at all"...but to be honest, of myself I have far greater interest in pleasure and comfort...and unless such love of truth is a given thing...I miss it every time. 

For I find a place where truth comes up against what I would "choose for myself" (and/or those I care for)...and without an impetus _not my own _to it...truth always takes a poor second (in simpler terms..."loses out") to my own preferences.


----------

