Gnostic timeline reversed?

What came first, Christian Gnostacism, or Christian literalists? The church today would tell you that Gnostic ideas were a later shoot off of the fundamental Christian ideas. But what if gnosticism came first, a deeper understanding of the symbolism of the nt texts, and the canic gospels were chosen because the literalists used their view to control the masses? This is not a new idea, the belief that Jesus didn't actually exist and was based on a pegan god got famous a few years ago (1999 I think) and has since been publicized in things like the DaVinci code. Anyway, my question to someone far more knowledgable then myself is; were gnostic gospels excluded from the NT based on the gnostic ideas alone? How do they date compared to the canic texts? And finally, what are your thoughts on the pegan/christ parallels?
Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm in a hurry!
Brad

Dionysus was also born on Dec. 25th, in a cave, there were three magi there, they braught him gold, mir, and frankensense. But my question pertained to the dates of the writing of the gnostics. It seems more and more like the early church does what it has continued to do best, and that is convert people by assimilating their beliefs. Did they also take the man-god idea, and forget that it was stolen?
Brad

From the book "The Jesus mysteryies: was the "original jesus" a pagan god?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. An excerpt of some of the similarities between pagan gods and Christ that are found in the book:God made fleshm the savior and "son of God."Father is god, and mother a mortal virgin.Born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25th before three shepards or magi.Offers his believers to be born again by rites of baptism.Miraculously turns water to wine at a marraige ceremony.Rides on a donky while people wave palm leaves to honor him.Dies at easter as a sacrafice of the sins of the world.After he is killed he is raised on the third day.His followers await his return as the judge in the Last Days.His death is celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine symbolizing his body and blood.However the above is a combination of things attributed to EITHER Osiris, or Dionysus. One egyptian, and one greek god. As for the gifts that the magi braught, I can't seem to find it at this time, I'll keep looking, and I'll also look for the author's source for the above facts!
Brad

p.s. I KNOW I SPELLED BROUGHT INCORRECTLY...and I did it again in the last post. I always, ever since I was little spell that word wrong, and unless I proofread I never catch it. damn.

The conclusion of the Jesus mysteries is basically that jesus is just a jewish version of the pagan stories to come before him, nothing more then a modern adaptation. I guess it can be likened to Neo in the movie The Matrix, just a modern adaptation of the same old stories. The question then seems to be, how did this particular story become taken as fact, as opposed to the rest that were always known to be legend.Also interesting to note, several contemporary writers at the time seem to have had harsh criticism of early christianity, calling it a poor immitation of the religions before.Why did Christianity take hold in the way it did? Perhaps Brian could offer some insight, as he has seemed knowledgable on such issues before.
Brad

Where did you get the date for Thomas? I have always been told the earliest copy was dated about AD 120, where the last canic text said to be written was in AD 90...maybe I'm wrong? I find this very interesting, anyone else?
Brad

Quote: "Doubtful. For starters, NONE of the church fathers were Gnostics.......and the Gnostics were considered heretics by all of the church fathers. So, if the FOUNDERS of the religion weren't Gnostics, I think it's safe to say that Biblical theology predates Gnosticism.Also, the Catholic church was founded in order to combine Christianty and Paganism.......so why wouldn't the already formed fusions of Christianity with Paganism, such as Gnosticism, been embrassed if it was the form if Christianty that most early Christians adhered to? The obvious answer is that most early Christians did NOT adhere to Gnosticism, and so the Rome abolished Gnosticism in order to make its union with Christianity more agreeable to Christians. "Except that we are only JUST NOW learning about the early church, everything we knew before was most likely a lie since Constantine decided to make the official religion of Rome Christianity and he commisioned one writer to do so. All other Christian texts were destroyed. The only thing we know about the early church is what was written in 400ce by an author who was commissioned by a tyrant. The gospels were the only ones allowed to pass through. This is why the idea of Gnosticism predating Christianity is such a new idea. The only thing we knew about gnostics or pagans was from their opponents until books like Thomas came to light. This is why I am very interested in the dates...
Brad

not a moot point because Dionysus came first, did he not?

SirPimpsAlot, I will reply with exact names and dates from some sources later in the weekend, I am fairly busy until sunday, so I hope this topic doesn't die before then, because I want to get this cleared up. Thanks for your responses!
Brad

Some gnostics didn't even believe Christ the man ever existed, but was just a mythological conclusion. He was the same old story from the Jewish perspective. After this weekend is over, I promise, I'll go fact hunting with specific dates, names, and quotes!
Brad

Well, since many Gnostic texts refer to paul as being gnostic, it stands to reason that the founders were gnostic. Also there are examples of gnostic verses in the NT I have to go to work now but will also include those in my reply to sirpimpsalot that seems to grow every time I check this board. This thread is so going to get me fired one of these days!
Brad

So, I read that Constantine in the early fourth century had Anubias (I think, I can never remember his name) write a history of the early Christian church based on Constantines bias, and myth, whith a not so generous helping of fact. What does this history include? does this include the counsil that formed the bible around 200 ce? What does this 'history' talk about? How do current finding contradict it?
Brad

-double post-This message has been edited by Shadow, 10-27-2004 02:44 PM

-triple post-This message has been edited by Shadow, 10-27-2004 07:00 PM

-quadrouple post- (yes, I hit the button too many times...)This message has been edited by Shadow, 10-27-2004 07:01 PM