Christian Origins?

[Thinker]

Let’s go way back, to the Gnostics, Docetists and other Christian sects that emerged in the 1st 100 years AD. I always believed the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) were written first, but come to find out Hebrews and some of Paul’s epistles were written before them. Through many centuries, the Catholic Church has picked and chosen biblical canon. I don’t trust the Catholic church based on the evil they did, using Christianity as their excuse.

What is CHRIST (or God’s gospel) really about, without corrupt ideas of crusading/murderous theocracy (religiously-influenced government)?

I will list some notes, and would appreciate any help you might give.

[Robin Hood]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

[SJR3t2]

To see if we will choose His ways and become like Him or not.

[Thinker]

A basic timeline:
*I’m particularly interested in the time of Christ, immediately before and after, and topics of discussion at the councils which may shed light on the former. Also, note how much our & others’ religion has been created by vote and other uninspired means.

300 BC: OT canonized

1 AD: Mithraism - Graco/Roman secret society
1 AD: Gnostics - quest for divine knowledge, thread through various religions but later Church rejected Docetists and began the Inquisition with Albigensians.



312 AD: Emperor Constantine ordered bible copies

• 7 Catholic Councils:
  1) 325: 1st Council of Nicaea with Constantine: discussed nature of Christ & Arius declared heretical
  2) 381: 1st Council of Constantinople: Arianism, Apollinarism, Sabellianism, Holy Spirit
  3) 431: 1st Council of Ephesus: Nestorianism, Theotokos, Pelagianism
  4) 451: 1st Council of Chabedon; Christ’s humanity/divinity
  5) 553: 2nd Council of Constantinople: Nestorianism, Monophysitism
  6) 680: 3rd Council of Constantinople: Monophysitism
  7) 787: 2nd Council of Nicaea: Iconoclasm

383: NT from Hebrew/Greek to Latin
400: Hebrew/Greek bible into Latin
500: Hebrew/Greek Bible into various languages
600: Catholic Church declares Latin only language for scripture
900: Gnostics re-emerged but oppressed
1200: Gnostics/Albigensians rejected by Church, Inquisition
1229: Council of Toulouse forbids lay people from owning a bible
1382: John Wycliffe translates LATIN bible to English

1525: William Tyndale translates Hebrew/Greek Bible to English, killed for heresy 1536
1611: KJV (King James Version, bible) Now, +1Billion copies, most printed book in world
1950’s: Dead Sea Scrolls discovered
1983: Silver Scrolls discovered

[Thinker]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

[Thinker]

To see if we will choose His ways and become like Him or not.

Please clarify what you mean. How do we know what “He” and “His ways” are?

Hebrews, considered to have been written before the 4 gospels, speaks of Christ as a spirit, never a man. The earliest believers in Christ are theorized to be Gnostics, who also believed in Christ as a Spirit, not a man.

To the disciples of Christ’s time, Christ only became divine after resurrection - even then they were suspicious - thinking someone had stolen his body. Gradually, the divinity of Christ was moved back to his baptism, then to his birth and then to pre-existence.

It seems like the Catholic church has played god - in deciding what people were/are to believe about God, Christ etc., whether it’s true or not. The Catholic church’s whims seem to be the real, but unrealized, foundation of many people’s beliefs - even in our church.

[SJR3t2]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

[Jesef]

To see if we will choose His ways and become like Him or not.

Please clarify what you mean. How do we know what “He” and “His ways” are?

Hebrews, considered to have been written before the 4 gospels, speaks of Christ as a spirit, never a man. The earliest believers in Christ are theorized to be Gnostics, who also believed in Christ as a Spirit, not a man.

To the disciples of Christ’s time, Christ only became divine after resurrection - even then they were suspicious - thinking someone had stolen his body. Gradually, the divinity of Christ was moved back to his baptism, then to his birth and then to pre-existence.

It seems like the Catholic church has played god - in deciding what people were/are to believe about God, Christ etc., whether it’s true or not. The Catholic church’s whims seem to be the real, but unrealized, foundation of many people’s beliefs - even in our church.

The Church seems to subscribe only to romanticized, fantastic, miraculous, & mythological history, not actual, true, accurate, real history, in all its flawed imperfection. Faith-promoting stories seem to grow like weeds. The members of the Church have an almost Evangelical-like view of their scriptures as inerrant - except that the Bible can be cherry-picked due to "mistranslation". Joseph Smith's First Vision seems to have been a tale that grew in the telling between the original 1832 account written in Joseph Smith's handwriting, where Joseph already knows all the churches are in apostasy & is seeking a forgiveness of his sins (a Christian conversion/saving experience), no devil attacks him, & only one heavenly being appeared ("The Lord" who identifies himself as the Redeemer), and the "official version" published in 1842 in which he is seeking to know which church is true & he should join, the devil attacks him, & the Father introduces the Son, etc.
http://mit.irr.org/changing-first-visio ... h-smith-jr

[Thinker]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

[Davka]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

I guess I’m confused at what you are getting at...you are implying that Jesus isn’t an actual historical figure, just a mythical one, because that’s what Gnostics believed?

[Thinker]

To see if we will choose His ways and become like Him or not.

Please clarify what you mean. How do we know what “He” and “His ways” are?

Hebrews, considered to have been written before the 4 gospels, speaks of Christ as a spirit, never a man. The earliest believers in Christ are theorized to be Gnostics, who also believed in Christ as a Spirit, not a man.

To the disciples of Christ’s time, Christ only became divine after resurrection - even then they were suspicious - thinking someone had stolen his body. Gradually, the divinity of Christ was moved back to his baptism, then to his birth and then to pre-existence.

It seems like the Catholic church has played god - in deciding what people were/are to believe about God, Christ etc., whether it’s true or not. The Catholic church’s whims seem to be the real, but unrealized, foundation of many people’s beliefs - even in our church.

The Church seems to subscribe only to romanticized, fantastic, miraculous, & mythological history, not actual, true, accurate, real history, in all its flawed imperfection. Faith-promoting stories seem to grow like weeds. The members of the Church have an almost Evangelical-like view of their scriptures as inerrant - except that the Bible can be cherry-picked due to "mistranslation". Joseph Smith's First Vision seems to have been a tale that grew in the telling between the original 1832 account written in Joseph Smith's handwriting, where Joseph already knows all the churches are in apostasy & is seeking a forgiveness of his sins (a Christian conversion/saving experience), no devil attacks him, & only one heavenly being appeared ("The Lord" who identifies himself as the Redeemer), and the "official version" published in 1842 in which he is seeking to know which church is true & he should join, the devil attacks him, & the Father introduces the Son, etc.
http://mit.irr.org/changing-first-visio ... h-smith-jr

Interesting - how church leaders determine canon. What measures up and what doesn’t seems to depend more on the leaders’ opinions than on truth. And it’s like the telephone game where the message gets more and more distorted.

I think it’s interesting how Joseph Smith received the vision saying that all religion is corrupt. Amen!? I don’t think all corruption is intentional - much is tradition.

There’s a good possibility that dreams, visions and even the afterlife are significantly subjectively experienced. Eg: In NDEs, Hindus might see one of their gods, Muslims see Allah as sacred mandala & Christians see their white Jesus. Joseph Smith was no exception. Despite the natural yin/yang laws in nature and despite ancient Atarte/Sophia Dove/Holy Spirit was seen as feminine Divinity, Joseph Smith taught of a divine Father, male Holy Ghost & Son... but Father, Mother, Son makes more sense, don’t you think?

[Robin Hood]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

Don't know where to start really.
There is a very good article by a BYU professor I read a wee while ago, in which it was stated that the Christian scholars who compiled the NT did a remarkably good job. The author further stated that most of the non-biblical writings doing the rounds, such as the gospel of Thomas et al, were more than suspect and that the church fathers had done a good job in keeping them out of the canon.

The catholic church did not become the catholic church, even in embryo, until around 325 AD.

[Thinker]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

I guess I’m confused at what you are getting at...you are implying that Jesus isn’t an actual historical figure, just a mythical one, because that’s what Gnostics believed?

Partly, but also, what makes more sense? What is actually verifiably, experientially true? I cannot go back and time travel to determine history & that’s not what spirituality is about anyway. I CAN experience the spirit right now.

• John 4:24: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

It seems that the adversary’s strategy is to get people looking in all the wrong places for God. Christ said...

• “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” - Luke 17:20-21

This scripture ^ contradicts so much Catholic & lds dogma! Or should I say, these churches contradict truth by demanding people look to them rather than to God.

How can I believe in human sacrifice scapegoating? It goes against what I know to be right, true and good. People want to be convinced they’re lovable - and only a god suffering horribly to death will suffice? Can’t one feel lovable without pretending God requires cruel DEATH to compensate for creating us as he did - imperfect? Ok, I can see some symbolism in sacrifice itself - if you follow Christ - personalize the suffering & death of Christ - and do your own atoning (correcting what you can of your sins/mistakes). But most approach it as an excuse to not make at-one their mistakes, and to continue thinking in terms of all-or-nothing - when to our dying days, we’re all a messy mix of bad and good.

Does Christ having been a man 2,000 + years ago affect me now? No. Does the Spirit of Christ affect me now? Yes. When training potential monks, Buddhist monks told them to imagine Buddha never lived - but the writings do. They wanted them to focus on the Spirit and truth rather than a man. It seems like an appropriate approach for Christianity too - and like what Christ taught also. He rejected when someone regarded him as god...

• “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” - Matthew 19:17

[Thinker]

The catholic church of the crusades and the inquisition is not the same church as the one that settled on the NT canon. The church fathers were very careful to ensure the provenance of the writings that made it into the bible.
We can trust the New Testament.

I want to believe that, but it seems unlikely.
Can you show me credible proof/sources?

Don't know where to start really.
Theee is a very good article by a BYU professor I read a wee while ago, in wnich it was stated that the Cnristian scholars who compiled the NT did a remarkably good job. The author further stated that most of the non-biblical writings doing the rounds, such as the gospel of Thomas et al, were more than suspect and that the cnurch fatners had done a good job in keeping them out of the canon.

The catholic church did not become the catholic church, even in embryo, until around 325 AD.

Ok, let’s assume all was fine until 325 & the Catholic councils. All scripture we have - even the Book of Mormon - is based on those Catholic councils, where they argued many viewpoints, & voted to decide what the canon would be.

Also, Paul seems to have been the earliest writer - and that was about 50 years after Christ, and he was a convert. What do you remember of 50 years ago?

The main lesson I am drawing is the need to not blindly accept all scripture as true, but to reasonably think about it and pray about it - & do our own measuring to see if it aligns with personal spiritual experiences to discern what is true. As powerful as tradition and dogma are, I deem God/Truth even more so.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

...

[Thinker]

I wanted to clarify something:
Religion is GOoD in many ways - but it’s people who when they get power, tend to corrupt it. But even in the corruption, some good is still there. Take the best, leave the rest.

SH,
You make some good points and I do think that a lot of people - Theist and Atheist consider scripture only through “literal” scientific lenses, neglecting the spirit of the law and words. I want to read through and consider your post more because it’s profound.

[jmack]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Where are you getting your information? Are you reading books from credible sources? I read a lot on early Christianity, though it's been awhile, but I'm sure I would have remembered that, it's not true The followers of Jesus knew he was born and had a body, gnostic mystical beliefs that sprung up a while after his death were influenced by greek philosophy which rejected the physical world and started to make claims that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but some other person took his place. Read about how greek philosophy influenced Christian doctrine and the spread of them, what survived and what didn't.

[jmack]

Let’s go way back, to the Gnostics, Docetists and other Christian sects that emerged in the 1st 100 years AD. I always believed the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) were written first, but come to find out Hebrews and some of Paul’s epistles were written before them. Through many centuries, the Catholic Church has picked and chosen biblical canon. I don’t trust the Catholic church based on the evil they did, using Christianity as their excuse.

What is CHRIST (or God’s gospel) really about, without corrupt ideas of crusading/murderous theocracy (religiously-influenced government)?

I will list some notes, and would appreciate any help you might give.

I'm am curious about your sources. Of course Johns works were written later, He describes when the church was dealing with break off sects and mysticism, gnosticism, his writings on Christ were not contemporary to events, written about 85 to 90. Paul's letters are contemporary for the time he wrote them, they were letters in real time, so Hebrews was written about 64 to 68. Matthew, Mark, Luke were obviously written after the events they describe, in the 50s to 60s. What survived were copies of those writings, some surviving copies are earlier than others but that doesn't change the time of the initial writing. Robin Hood is right , the books the early church put as canon are accurate, we can feel confident in their choices. You need to be careful of those who want to revise history for their own reasons, which may not be the right reasons. If someone brings a new theory forward, they need sound evidence to back it up.

[Thinker]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Where are you getting your information? Are you reading books from credible sources? I read a lot on early Christianity, though it's been awhile, but I'm sure I would have remembered that, it's not true The followers of Jesus knew he was born and had a body, gnostic mystical beliefs that sprung up a while after his death were influenced by greek philosophy which rejected the physical world and started to make claims that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but some other person took his place. Read about how greek philosophy influenced Christian doctrine and the spread of them, what survived and what didn't.

I know what you mean. Before, I only read lds church or Christian biblical chronology & pretty much accepted it without question. So it was surprising when I came across archeological facts that earliest Christians didn’t believe as many of us do now. Gnosticism was around about 1 AD - before Christ’s ministering.

More importantly, it makes sense spiritually that the spirit of Christ is what matters - history and scientific literal evidence are not so important. Also, didn’t Christ say to follow him and do all he did and more? If Christ were only a man, not an way of becoming, he wouldn’t have said that.

In my 2nd post, I tried to post a picture of the NT timeline but apparently it didn’t work. Here is the link, of a page from “The Biblical World: An Illustrated Atlas.” https://m.imgur.com/PcONW
The first time I ever heard that Gnostics may have been the first Christians was in a BBC documentary (maybe this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro ... e_01.shtml)

[larsenb]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Wow on that one.

The resurrection was a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Why ? Because of the people in their midst who had both witnessed the crucifixion and the later resurrected Christ. This fact is what galvanized His despondent followers to go out and preach, let the consequences follow . . . which they did when many of them were martyred.

[Thinker]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Wow on that one.

The resurrection was a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Why ? Because of the people in their midst who had both witnessed the crucifixion and the later resurrected Christ. This fact is what galvanized His despondent followers to go out and preach, let the consequences follow . . . which they did when many of them were martyred.

Hi Larsen! I’m glad you’re on this thread - I was hoping for your input.

Consider that nobody believed he had been resurrected - not even those closest to him.

• “Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him.” - John 20:13

It seems it had never crossed her mind that he could have been resurrected - instead her assumption was his body was taken by someone.

I realize, as explained before, there were various views. It seems to have had this order:
1) Christ is a Spirit (Gnosticism)
2) Christ is a spirit with an illusion of being a man (Docetism)
3) Christ is a man who became deity upon resurrection
4) Christ is a man who became deity upon baptism
5) Christ is a man who was born demi-god to a virgin (as many other myths)
6) Christ is born God
7) Christ was always God - even in pre-existence

This was outlined in this lecture, “Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity,” by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman: https://youtu.be/3lBHmpaYUHI

The problem is that those writings - all of the bible - have been through a corrupt crusading/Inquisition theocracy who sought to warp religion to keep people from arguing and submissive to the theocracy - (Constantine & the Catholic/“Universal” church). Even if we were to trust them, the earliest writings were about 2 generations after Christ. It is suggested that the 4 gospels were written after - and patterned after - Paul’s epistles.

Constantine wanted to stop people from arguing and potentially warring over religious differences so he collected doctrine from various sects. The reason why only Matthew and Luke have the story of Christ’s birth and Mark and John don’t is in part, due to the religious differences in ancient Christianity.

Most dogmatically religious sources & websites reflect incorrect timelines. Why? Is it because they want to portray the same story as the Catholic church did? What do you think about the similarities between religious beliefs...



Unlike some, I would NOT conclude these are deceptive copies, but more like symbolic truths that are retold in different times and through different characters.

[abijah]

The original primordial religion was the definitive fertility cult. Everything comes back to fertility versus infertility, it’s the defining distinction between light and dark, good and evil: the ability to reproduce.

Cultic fertility themes are the overarching topic of all the scriptures, all of Christianity and are blatantly displayed in Endowment ceremonies.

What we call the “Endowment” (which I know you appreciate so much thinker ), with all its subsequent offshoots and corruptions is the root of all Mesopotamian / Egyptian religion and culture, and therefore all Abrahamic tradition.

[SettingDogStar]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Wow on that one.

The resurrection was a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Why ? Because of the people in their midst who had both witnessed the crucifixion and the later resurrected Christ. This fact is what galvanized His despondent followers to go out and preach, let the consequences follow . . . which they did when many of them were martyred.

Actually the Horus and Jesus connection has been greatly debunked. He was not the son of a virgin, Isis used her Goddess abilities to resurrect her husband (after he had been dismembered) and then fashioned him a golden phallus and then was impregnated (or at least thats the general outline, but either way not a virgin). There is no character named Anup the Baptizer in ancient Egyptian mythology. This is the concoction of a 19th-century English poet and amateur Egyptologist by the name of Gerald Massey.

Also, no twelve disciples either. This claim finds its origin in the work of Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, book 12), which points to a mural depicting “the twelve who reap the harvest.” But Horus does not appear in the mural. In the various Horus myths, there are indications of the "Sons of Hours" and at times there were various numbers of human followers, but they never add up to twelve.

It's also well known that Christ was not born on December 25th, but that that date was adopted later.

There are many parallels in Egyptian Mythology, Theology, and Ritual which are powerful and filled with truth. However, this parallel is not one of them. Though Horus has very small "connections" to the story of Jesus, it's not a simple and total rehash. The same can be said for the other Gods listed here which have very little literal connection to the story of Christ.

[nightlight]

Book of Ether shows Christ was a spirit before his birth also, I see no issues with that.

That’s different. Earlier Christians believed Christ was always a spirit - never born as a person.

Wow on that one.

The resurrection was a cornerstone of early Christian belief. Why ? Because of the people in their midst who had both witnessed the crucifixion and the later resurrected Christ. This fact is what galvanized His despondent followers to go out and preach, let the consequences follow . . . which they did when many of them were martyred.

Hi Larsen! I’m glad you’re on this thread - I was hoping for your input.

Consider that nobody believed he had been resurrected - not even those closest to him.

• “Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my LORD, and I know not where they have laid him.” - John 20:13

It seems it had never crossed her mind that he could have been resurrected - instead her assumption was his body was taken by someone.

I realize, as explained before, there were various views. It seems to have had this order:
1) Christ is a Spirit (Gnosticism)
2) Christ is a spirit with an illusion of being a man (Docetism)
3) Christ is a man who became deity upon resurrection
4) Christ is a man who became deity upon baptism
5) Christ is a man who was born demi-god to a virgin (as many other myths)
6) Christ is born God
7) Christ was always God - even in pre-existence

This was outlined in this lecture, “Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity,” by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman: https://youtu.be/3lBHmpaYUHI

The problem is that those writings - all of the bible - have been through a corrupt crusading/Inquisition theocracy who sought to warp religion to keep people from arguing and submissive to the theocracy - (Constantine & the Catholic/“Universal” church). Even if we were to trust them, the earliest writings were about 2 generations after Christ. It is suggested that the 4 gospels were written after - and patterned after - Paul’s epistles.

Constantine wanted to stop people from arguing and potentially warring over religious differences so he collected doctrine from various sects. The reason why only Matthew and Luke have the story of Christ’s birth and Mark and John don’t is in part, due to the religious differences in ancient Christianity.

Most dogmatically religious sources & websites reflect incorrect timelines. Why? Is it because they want to portray the same story as the Catholic church did? What do you think about the similarities between religious beliefs...



Unlike some, I would NOT conclude these are deceptive copies, but more like symbolic truths that are retold in different times and through different characters.

You always do this.
You use scrip to make a point....then say the scriptures are fake.

Do you realize this?

[Thinker]

The original primordial religion was the definitive fertility cult. Everything comes back to fertility versus infertility, it’s the defining distinction between light and dark, good and evil: the ability to reproduce.

Cultic fertility themes are the overarching topic of all the scriptures, all of Christianity and are blatantly displayed in Endowment ceremonies.

What we call the “Endowment” (which I know you appreciate so much thinker ), with all its subsequent offshoots and corruptions is the root of all Mesopotamian / Egyptian religion and culture, and therefore all Abrahamic tradition.

I believe Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet (among other things ), and I love the symbolism in the temple sealing rooms, however I have never felt right about the Freemasonry (Endowment) ritual. I was told to look for Christ-like symbolism, but come to find out, highest degrees of Freemasonry require a denial of Christ.

Anyway, Abijah, we may both agree that eternal truths find their expression throughout the ages. If you get a chance - maybe on a drive or something - listen to Jordan Peterson’s bible series which often considers Jung’s archetypes - very enlightening symbolically.