Gnostic timeline reversed?

I have read somewhere that Paul may have been a gnostic. As far as Jesus being based on pagan traditions, I have heard that Dionysus was half man half god. Dionysus was born of a virgin. He used wine in ceremony. He was put to death on a cross, he came back from the dead. Could it be possible that gnostics were absorbed and assimulated by the early church and over time the newer Christian movement replaced gnosticism. Like Sataria incorporates Catholicism and Voodoo. Anyway anyone who did not come into the fold was excumunicated and burned as a heretic, as were any pagan books that the church deemed heresy. It's ironic that many of the pagan traditions survived as christian holidays.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Well, Dionysus was killed in several ways depending on which story you read. Tortured and dismembered by the Titans. I can not find where he was cruxified, just a fact check on myself. There are some that contend that virgin birth storys were common in ancient mythologies contemporary with the early church. It is possible that even the gnostics took on the story of Dionysus and Helanized christians most likely converted along with the pagan traditions. Blasphemy I know. It is just a theory. But I do not know dates, all I have ever heard or read was that the traditions of the gnostics predate the Catholic church but were also possibly contermporary as well. As far as assimulated your guess is good as mine, I do not know.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-19-2004 11:30 PM

Just curious where you got that tid bit?

Well lets compare them:
Dionysus based on mythology Jesus based on mythology
Dionysus male Jesus male
Dionysus father is a god Jesus father is a God
Dionysus born of a virgin Jesus born of a virgin
Dionysus wine ceremony Jesus wine ceremony
Dionysus worshiped as a god Jesus worshipped as a God
Dionysus tortured by Titans Jesus tortured by Romans
Does Seven similarities constitute 'many' in your opinion? It vary well may be a moot point because the early church made sure to burn all possible links that could be made. Which is why we can only speculate today.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-21-2004 05:44 PM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Shadow, It is a moot point to me. Does it matter if Christians want to negate an ancient pagan religion that the church has distanced itself from for thousands of years? Gnosticim is still practiced but you well know the Holy Roman Church has discontinued the Inquistions so if you are a gnostic you can come out of the closet LOL!!!! To answer your question: Yes I do believe that Dionysus predates Christanity, Bachaus was the Roman equvilent to Dionysus. Have a good one.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-21-2004 09:10 PM

Dionysus was born by a mortal named Semele, The spirit of Zagreus was somehow passed into her body. She was impreganted by this spirit of Zagregus. She carried Dionysus in her womb. She was also the lover of Zeus . Hera fooled Zeus into revealing his true self to Semele and burned her to a crisp. He then took the baby from her body and implanted it in his thigh.So lets review: Semele is a mortal woman who is impreganted by the spirit of another god. =virgin birth story.Zeus gave all the powers of his kindom to Dionysus as a child.
Hera and the Titans became jelous of this and thus devised a way to kill Dionysus. Hera distracted the guards that were to protect Dionysus and the Titans snuck in smeared in white gypsum attacked and tortured and tore to pieces Dionysus. Zeus then burned the Titans to ashes along with the body of Dionysus, he merged the Titans ashes with his sons and the human race was born with the dual nature.Lets review: Dionysus is co ruler with Zeus his father, he is betrayed and brutally killed by the Titans, he is resurected by his father. = betrayal/ resurrection story. Dionysus is dated to 1600 bc in Greece. Your right I can not prove nothing nor did I ever say I could. I am simply looking at the facts and drawing conclusions. from them. You seem to be the one who is being dogmatic about it. *edit to correct typo.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-22-2004 01:21 PM

Sirpimpsalot, What exactly is your argument? Is it your contention that Christanity came before Gnosticism? If so please show evidence to support this claim. Do you also propose that there is no gnostic influence to Christian writings? If so what evidence do you have to support this claim. If these are your arguments I must see some evidence that would give creedence to such. Christianity did influence the world, that is a no brainer. However the mythology of Christianity is not completely original. Virgin birth stories, Half god half man stories, Global floods, all were common in other religions that predate Christ. Like Judaism, I suppose the Jews "copied" from the Christians too. My God is better, than your God. Your a bunch of copy cats!! LOL.
"Crom laughs at yer fo-ah winds." Arnold S. as Conan

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Case closed? I now think you have your own interpretations. You are dogmatic and it shows. I wont bother with this thread because It is like arguing the world is round to a person who insist that because he can not see it is a orb it must be flat. The world according to SirPimpsAlot. No matter what others say or show you evidence to the contrary you put your fingers in your ears and go La la la la la.. You are wrong. Your right about one thing it is a moot point. At least to me.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I always thought that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke.
Mark contains more lengthy material than Matt or Luke, if Mark were a condensed version then wouldn't Mark be more concise? Also Mark leaves material out that is in both Matt and Luke, such as birth accounts and sermon on the mount etc.. If Mark copied from Matt and Luke why would he leave material out? I read that Mark wrote about Jesus as a prophet of God and Matt, futher deified Jesus, Luke softened Jesus' actions and by the time John is written Jesus is fully deified as God incarnate. I thought Mark was dated to the 70's AD.

Mark wrote of Jesus as a mortal. No amount of redaction and theological calastintics will change that. The Arians who believed that Jesus was not one with the father 'different substance' lost out to the church in Rome. Hence all the Trinity aristotilian metaphysical hocus pocus was developed to explain 3 things that are one thing. There is no nativity account, or virgin birth story in Mark period. Matthew and Luke who wrote after Mark added those accounts to further diefy Jesus. But this is not my point, I was simply asking Bob which was written first. I always heard Mark was written before Matt and Luke. But since you piped in perhaps you could tell me if Mark was written in the 70's or not.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Rusty, thanks for the info. And about that quote in Mark "son of God." That was a common phrase in the day. We would all be considered the sons of God. That does not mean we are God incarnate.