All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.

1. Could you clarify what you mean by "original teachings of the Catholic Church" and how they differ from the teachings of later figures like Luther or Calvin?

2. When you mention "archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today," are you suggesting that these newer tools challenge or contradict the traditional teachings of Christianity? If so, then can you cite some examples where they disagree?

Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.

I think we agree more than disagree on the amount of influence the Catholic Church exerted on Christendom. But I don't go as far as to say that all traces of 1st century Christian doctrine was lost forever. I don't know if you go that far either, you haven't stated as much, but if so, then I'm willing to defend my position.

calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).

1. Gospel of Thomas: The Gospel of Thomas is indeed considered one of the Gnostic texts. Its attribution to Jesus' brother is debated among scholars, and dating estimates vary widely. While it's not part of the canonical New Testament, it's often categorized as Gnostic due to its thematic content and style, emphasizing secret knowledge and individual enlightenment, characteristics common in Gnostic literature.

2. Gnostic Labeling: The term "Gnostic" generally refers to a set of beliefs and texts that often emphasize "hidden" or "secret" knowledge for spiritual salvation. The Gospel of Thomas contains teachings that resonate with Gnostic thought, focusing on esoteric sayings attributed to Jesus rather than narrative accounts, like the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

3. Canonical Status: The canonization of the New Testament wasn't a single event but a gradual process that concluded in the 4th century. The criteria for canonization included apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, widespread usage, and consistency with established Christian teaching. The decision was not solely political but also considered theological factors and community acceptance.

4. Constantine's Role: While Emperor Constantine indeed played a role in convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which addressed doctrinal disputes, the notion that he personally determined the canon or dictated religious beliefs is historically inaccurate. The council's primary focus was on resolving theological controversies like the nature of Christ.

5. Church Development: Constantine's influence on the early church, especially regarding state support and its impact on Christianity's development, is acknowledged historically. However, attributing the entirety of the New Testament's canonization or the shaping of Christianity solely to Constantine oversimplifies a complex historical process involving theological considerations, tradition, and broader ecclesiastical consensus.

The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.

1. Gnostic Labeling as a Box: The term "Gnostic" indeed evolved over time and was applied more broadly in later contexts. In terms of early Christian texts, however, including non-canonical gospels, the label "Gnostic" primarily refers to certain philosophical and theological characteristics found in those writings. While this label was applied for categorization purposes, it was not necessarily a deliberate attempt to suppress alternative views as you insinuate.

2. Role in Canonization and Dogma: The classification of non-canonical gospels as "Gnostic" wasn't solely for the purpose of maintaining Roman canon. It's essential to note that the criteria for the New Testament canonization involved theological factors like apostolic authorship, orthodox content, and widespread acceptance. While some non-canonical texts contain divergent theological perspectives, the process of canonization was not solely driven by a desire to reinforce Roman authority.

3. Suppression of Alternate Views: There were instances of theological disputes and efforts by certain factions within early Christianity to suppress competing beliefs. However, attributing the loss or suppression of certain texts solely to the early Church or Roman authorities oversimplifies a complex historical context with multiple factors at play. The reasons for the disappearance of certain writings are varied and not solely due to "intentional suppression" by a central authority.

4. Nag Hammadi Library's Preservation: The Nag Hammadi discovery in the 20th century indeed revealed valuable non-canonical texts, including Gnostic writings. The circumstances of their burial in the 4th century suggest efforts to preserve these texts. However, while there might have been efforts to safeguard certain teachings from persecution, attributing the entire loss of these texts solely to deliberate Church action may oversimplify the historical complexities of that period.

"Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years."

even though Gnostic Christianity predated the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version), the main tenants of 1st century Christianity teachings were already a part of the diverse landscape of early Christian thought, coexisting alongside other theological perspectives. It wasn't an either "Gnostic Christianity" or "Roman Christian Dogma" situation.

IOW, it wasn't a binary situation of Gnostic Christianity versus Roman Christian dogma. Instead, it was a complex milieu where various Christian groups held differing theological views, interpretations of scripture, and practices. These groups coexisted alongside each other, contributing to the rich tapestry of beliefs within early Christianity. Over time, certain theological perspectives became dominant and were eventually formalized into what is often considered orthodox Christian doctrine, but this process involved a wide range of beliefs and perspectives in the earlier stages of Christianity's development.

To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.

Yes. I fully agree with you here when you say 'to oversimplify." kek!

Your statement DEF reflects a highly oversimplified view of early Christian history and theological development.

1. Gnostic vs. Saul Version: The portrayal of early Christianity as a conflict between "Gnostic" and "Saul" versions oversimplifies the diverse theological landscape of the time. It's important to note, like I mentioned above, that Paul's teachings and the emergence of Gnostic thought were not the only two schools of Christian thought. Early Christianity was marked by a wide array of beliefs, communities, and interpretations of Jesus' teachings.

2. Saul/Paul's Background: Describing Paul as a "self-proclaimed top-level spy of the Pharisees" and a "self-admitted mass murderer of Christians," while fun, requires a little more nuance. While Paul had Pharisaic training and initially persecuted Christians, his conversion to Christianity is a pivotal aspect of Christian history. He became a prominent figure in spreading early Christian teachings and his writings constitute a significant portion of the New Testament.

3. Winning of Saul's Version: The implication that Paul's teachings "won in the end" oversimplifies the complex process of Christian theological development. While Paul's influence was substantial, early Christianity experienced diverse theological perspectives and did not singularly conform to Paul's teachings. The canonization of the New Testament and the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine, as mentioned prior, were gradual processes shaped by various factors beyond Paul's influence alone.