Virgin Birth

[bomohwkl]

Does a female where a test-tube baby is implanted into his womb consider a virgin?

[WalkerInTheWoods]

The idea to us today of the birth to a virgin is fantasic. But before and during the time of Jesus the Roman and Greek gods were getting their freak on all over the place with the human hotties. Thus virgin birth was not an uncommon idea and seemed to have "happened" often.

Do you think that this influenced the idea of Jesus being born to a virgin? If Jesus was truly born to a virgin, why would God conform to human ideas of the time? If Jesus was not born to a virgin would it matter to you at all?

[pod_3]

I recently saw an experiment in which basic (oposite of acidic) ingredients in semen caused an egg to divide with no transfer of genetic information. Similar chemicals are naturally present in normal womens' bodies. Apparently, if the female has an extra Y chromosome, she may look normal and have a male offspring without intercourse.

[Tyciol]

I think Mary did a lot of gymnastics, so she used that to explain why a torn hymen didn't mean she had sex

Does a female where a test-tube baby is implanted into his womb consider a virgin?

Allow me to reword your question so that it uses correct terminology, exclusive specification and gender: "Is an artificially inseminated mother considered a virgin if she has never had sex?"

The answer is yes. We define virginity by sexual intercourse, not conceiving, today. Otherwise you'd be a virgin if you always used condoms in your daily sandwiched orgies. While sexual conception has taken place, sexual intercourse (implying another person present and interacting sexually, which a doctor would NOT count as) has not.

[Potential]

Didn't Jesus have older brothers, go figure.

[Tayesin]

Hi,
Maybe Mary did what a million other girls have done in the history of humanity...  got pregnant, married quickly and pretended to be a virgin on the first night when the hubby would have been drunk on copious quantities of watered wine, and therefore easy to fool.  A few splashes of animal blood would make happy the crones who would have been present to insure she was a virgin when they had to check the bedding for blood stains ?

Or, maybe the angel who visited her was not really an angel, maybe it was her Lover or husband to be...  and as nature would have it she conceived during their pre-marital sex ?

Or, the angel was real and it impregnated her artificially to insure the coming of a specialized being ?

Or, the angel was an Alien who also did the same thing ?

Basically, it's over two thousand years ago, apart from christians trying to prove their religion is the One True religion..  why should it matter now ?

 

[exothen]

Potential,

Didn't Jesus have older brothers, go figure.  

Nope.

[Beth]

Dear runlola,

What's even more fantastic to my non-religious friend is the resurrection. She told me she could never accept Christianity because of the stories. People laugh at witches & other religious stories but for some reason they whole-heartedly believe the Christian stories. Why is that?

Very good comment/question.  My answer is--a very long time ago, some very powerful people demanded that people believe these stories to be real and all others to be false or merely fiction.  After generations of making good on the demands through censure, torture, hanging, burning, and various other techniques of submission, accepting these stories as being historical and the literal truth became the only way for people to survive.  In other words, it was just easier and safer to go with the flow. Why do people still believe all of this?  I guess the answer is individual and unique, but I also know that when given no other real options, staying with tradition seems to be easiest thing to do--and many people like for the answers to be provided for them rather than going to the trouble to seek the answers themselves.

Originally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries.  This is actually very sad...but true.  Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years.  It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

The truth is coming to the fore, just give it time.  

Peace,
Beth

p.s.  Just because these stories are not historically true, does not mean that they are not valuable.  The stories themselves do have a lot to offer us, but we must read them as the moral fables, allegories and parables that they are.

[exothen]

Beth,

My answer is--a very long time ago, some very powerful people demanded that people believe these stories to be real and all others to be false or merely fiction. After generations of making good on the demands through censure, torture, hanging, burning, and various other techniques of submission, accepting these stories as being historical and the literal truth became the only way for people to survive.

This is an entirely fallacious argument. First, it ignores that the Apostles and other initial followers of Christ really believed that they say the resurrected Christ. Paul makes mention of hundreds of people who saw Him.

Second, you ignore the thousands of people who believed apart from any religious control, torture, etc. You fallaciously make it seem like the only reason people believed was because they were forced to. And certainly this happened, I am not denying that, but it goes way beyond that.

Third, you ignore the thousands who believed in the literal resurrection of Christ and believed in him as their Savior despite themselves being tortured and killed for doing so.

Why do people still believe all of this? I guess the answer is individual and unique, but I also know that when given no other real options, staying with tradition seems to be easiest thing to do--and many people like for the answers to be provided for them rather than going to the trouble to seek the answers themselves.

Here, again, you employ the same fallacious reasoning, ignoring the fact that thousands believe these things because they have found them to be true.

Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years.

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

p.s. Just because these stories are not historically true, does not mean that they are not valuable. The stories themselves do have a lot to offer us, but we must read them as the moral fables, allegories and parables that they are.

You have offered no reason to believe that these stories are not historically true and that we should consider them "moral fables."

If the stories of Christ, his virgin birth, incarnation, death and resurrection, and everything in between are merely "moral fables," then there is nothing moral about them. In fact, they would be completely immoral and no one should have anything to do with them. They would be nothing but a bunch of lies taught by a liar and written down by those He deceived.

[Beth]

Dear X,

Wow...I guess everybody wants a piece of me these days! It seems I am now 2 for 2 in tinkling people off!!! (Other Moderators:  can I use the word "tinkling???"--if not, feel free to edit!)

Ex, we have been down this road before.  If you do not want to know anything new...then just don't read my posts....you do know how to ignore posts...don't you?  

I was responding to a member who asked a legitimate question to which I gave a legitimate answer....an answer that I proudly and knowledgeably stand by...as a mature adult and a as scholar.  

Now, if you want to fight, perhaps you and Aunt Clair could go a round or two.  There should be plenty of things for the two of you to hash out...


Peace Ex,
Beth

[exothen]

Beth,

I am not looking for piece of anyone nor am I 'ticked' off.

Ex, we have been down this road before. If you do not want to know anything new...then just don't read my posts

If we've been down this road before, then how can your posts have anything new...? Just curious.

you do know how to ignore posts...don't you?

Of couse I do. But I cannot ignore posts that purposely portray Christianity as something it is not.

I was responding to a member who asked a legitimate question to which I gave a legitimate answer

But that is the whole point isn't it? You gave a very one-sided, fallacious answer.

[Beth]

Dear runlola,

You are very welcome!

Peace,
Beth

[Gandalf]

I'm just suspicious of why Exothen feels the need to come here at all.
This forum is for the Astral pulse.. ie for those interested and involved with astral experiences and techniques..

now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform,.. but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

Exothen has absolutly no interest in astral projection, in fact when I asked him about it once, he didnt even know what it was.. so why is he here? answer: to evangelise.. thats it.. he believes he is doing gods work...
the input he puts into this forum therefore is not a positive one, as his aim is ultimatrly to convert all the 'heathens' of the forums.

Doug

[exothen]

I am here because there is so much error being passed as truth regarding Christianity it is astounding. I don't think I have ventured outside the Christian partition of these forums, it is you who comes in. If you don't like it, you don't have to come in.

[Gandalf]

Pardon?

It is you who have been allowed 'within', on a controlled basis I might add. This is not a christian web site as such, This christian 'sub-forum' is a platform, created for a specific purpose, which i alluded to above, as a measure to keep in check some of your more fanatical 'brethren'. i don't have to like it, but it's important to keep an eye on it nevertheless.

Douglas

[Tayesin]

Hi,
I see much of the same old arguments between christian-religionists and those who do not attach to that belief-system.

We can read about the historical nature of the times of Jesus, and even about the members of his family..including brothers..  yet, the religionists will overlook this or claim it is wrong, based solely on the now-questionable books of the bible.

Ultimately, there is no way to bridge the gap between the two groups..believers and non-believers.

For instance...
Yesterday I was asked to help a lady with mental aberrations..  she has a strong faith in her chosen religion..  so strongly is she Indoctrinated into the Belief-System of her religion, that there was no way to help her because she could not see nor comprehend beyond the Belief-systems indoctrinations !

I wasn't able to find a way for her to understand that I could help her to Clarity by introducing her to the Light...  which she could most probably easily experience but would have had to interpret the experience through the Belief-System of her religion...which makes the whole thing worthless and so we didn't even try it with her.

This is the same problem some of you posters here are experiencing... the inability to show Believers a more effective way to perceive what they have been Indoctrinated with.   And why is it so ?  Because the Believers absolutely refuse to open their own eyes and ears to hear and experience a deeper truth that is easily available to them.

Who is to say that God is not working through some of the "heathens" to help his believers to Clarity ?

[freelight]

Greetings all,

One may accept the mass orthodox belief in the virgin birth(VB)...and/or have developed his own adherence to such for a variety of reasons...all of course augmenting Christs unique and special Sonship. We know some early christian sects did not necessarily believe Jesus was virgin-born...but this became the standard doctrine as orthodox teaching was being strived for thru creeds and dogmas...as the 'church' sought to lay out 'correct' doctrine. Many angles on the VB debate exist within orthodox and unorthodox christian schools.

So much of those who contend for the VB have theologically grounds as to the nature of Jesus as 'divine' or 'God'...and another view that Jesus had to be virgin-born to be our Savior, or else he would have the tainted blood of Adam passed down thru a human father. Only a pure human sacrifice without the taint of sin could be sacrificed for mankinds sins, etc.
There is much more involved, of course.

Does it matter? Well,......only to those who have an invested faith in the matter. In my own Christ-centered path.........I can behold the divinity in Jesus and acknowledge his divine Sonship without necessarily accepting the VB. Such does however naturally fit into the mythos and mystique associated with the drama of redemption - such story-telling and veneration has its place in the worship of the divine thru whatever forms/beliefs inspire faith in a higher power.

It can also illustrate that in order for us to have the Christ(anointing/light)  born anew in us....we must become pure and virginal in our souls...that we me become cradles of the divine. Like Mary....we can become blessed among humanity for nurturing the divine issue for the salvation of the world. This can be facilitated in us...as we become purveyors of light, manifestors of Love.

Remember when the Christ was born in the baby Jesus....the angels proclaimed that with his advent/birth.....there could be 'peace on earth and good will towards all men'. For the seed of God to bloom within the garden of the heart/soul......a pure, prepared, fertile field is most desirable to provide for the healthiest/most beautiful expression of divinity.


paul

[Beth]

Hello Gandalf/Doug!  

I hope you are doing well. It has been a while...

You wrote:

now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform

While I realize that this was indeed the case, and that Robert and Adrian invited me in to moderate for this very reason, I think there was also the parallel intention to help reassure those astral travellers that are also believers, that this activity is not heretical and that there is room for both belief and experience--if they are willing to expand upon their beliefs to include their experience.  

but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

And this has been the unfortunate downside.  These people have come in, and thinking that these threads were made just for them, have indeed taken over to evangelise when most of us have made it perfectly clear that we already know what their position is and that it is other options that we seek.  

I am not going to revert to the circular arguments that we went through a year and a half ago.  It was very time consuming for me and quite frankly, I want to come to this forum and share what I know with those that want to know it, with the added intention of exploring a much higher purpose than mainstream Christianity.  If Ex, et al think they are going to bait me into argument again, they are mistaken.  I do not want to play...not here and not now.

Peace,
Beth

[Palehorse]

Originally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries. This is actually very sad...but true. Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years. It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

What name would that be?  I'm not trying to "get a piece of you," lol... 'tis just that the first two centuries of Christianity is one of my main focuses, mostly because I believe therein lies the key to what it was meant to be, and how far we've strayed since.  So I'd be very interested to see you elaborate on this further.

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

I agree with what she said as well -- the traditional account of Christianity's origins is quite a different story compared to what we're finding out to be true in this very century.  For instance, according to popular conception, there was One True Faith™ handed straight from Jesus to the apostles, which then remained uncorrupted despite the repeated attempts to undermine it by heretics who apparently had nothing better to do than deliberately believe and teach things they knew to be false, just for the sake of being ornery.  

Of course, the picture being painted by more recent finds is a whole other story: that even from the beginning there was a vast diversity of belief and practice, Jesus meant many things to many people, and there were all sorts of groups vying for position as the legitimate heirs to the Christian message.  When that is understood, the fact that one of those sects happened to gain imperial favor and was then imposed on the whole empire at the expense of all others becomes inconsequential as far as spiritual truth and authority is concerned.

This may or may not be the sort of thing Beth has in mind, but I'm interested to find out.

now the christianity forums were only created due to incidents with fundamentalists last year, and the idea was to try to limit the evangelists who kept coming here disrupting everything by giving them their own platform,.. but i dont entirly agree with this policy because now there is a forum catering for their needs... its only served to increase their numbers!

Well, I for one am very appreciative to have this forum here.  As a rather unorthodox Christian, it's really nice to have a place where I can propose and discuss some of my more "out there" theologizing that would otherwise be immediately dismissed and/or condemned by my more mainline, conservative brethren.

[Frank]

Hello:

This post is made with all due respects to Beth who has been assigned the rather difficult task of moderating this section of the forum. We are, of course, grateful for her dedication in that regard.

Gandalf makes a strong point, and he is correct in his observations as to why these particular forums were brought into being. These forums are not for people to engage in the recruitment of new believers to their cause. The Astral Pulse is an open forum that is presented in order that people of ALL faiths/believes, etc. can enter into respectful discussion and/or debate.

Continual posting with the sole intent of "converting" people to a particular "faith" or "cause" is not an action we allow.

Yours,
Frank

[Beth]

Dear Palehorse,

I wrote:

Originally, however, Christianity was nothing like it would become in later centuries. This is actually very sad...but true. Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years. It is, however, still alive and well in the world, it is just called by an entirely different name.

To which you replied:

What name would that be?  I'm not trying to "get a piece of you," lol... 'tis just that the first two centuries of Christianity is one of my main focuses, mostly because I believe therein lies the key to what it was meant to be, and how far we've strayed since.  So I'd be very interested to see you elaborate on this further.

Well...I have to say we have strayed very far from the path.  Would you believe that the 'entirely different name' is education?  Rabbis and disciples were teachers and students--not ministers or preachers.  

Original Christianity was an advanced branch of the ancient Greek enclyclica, or in 21st century speak--educational curriculum--that was fundamental to ancient Judaism as well as the Greek mystery traditions.  This curriculum was all of the expected topics such as grammar, mathematics, astronomy, science, literature, music, art, and ethics.  Early Christianity was probably much like our American high school or university level education, where all of these general topics had already been studied and then through the literature of the Greek philosophers and an allegorical interpretation of biblical scripture, the higher 'mysteries' were then studied in depth.  

What has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.  

The people that lived near and/or could afford to study in the public institutions (gymnasia) studied there, and the earliest Christians would also teach in private homes in order to make education available to whoever wanted and had the aptitude to do so.  

A few important points here: 1) the ancient synagogues were, according to Philo of Alexandria, their educational institutions, 2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course. 3) It also required the dedication to learn of and live a virtuous life--this was actually very important, 3) At some point--if one was found worthy--he/she was invited to become a member in the highest mysteries, or what Origen of Alexandria referred to as true Christianity.  These higher mysteries concentrated on the more metaphysical aspects of knowledge as well as those of personal experience.  

In comparing this ancient education with 21st century education, this does not mean that you must attend a public or even private university, even though the early church acted as such, the point of the acquistition of knowledge is to never cease seeking to learn new things and to understand things that you did not know or understand yesterday.  

Knowledge, for the ancients, was Power.  Today, we seriously take for granted our educational opportunities, oftentimes not even applying ourselves to the public education that comes at no cost to the student.  This is a pity because high tuition costs need not apply. There are plenty of ways to educate yourself--books can be studied in the comfort of your own home or through libraries and now we the internet.  While the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.  In other words, just because it is written in a book or posted on a website does not make it true.  In fact, each person should do their own homework, check all available sources, and after appropriate study and contemplation of the subject, decide for themselves what it is true and what is not.  

But--technically speaking, one is probably more of a Christian today--by ancient standards--if they have acquired an education of some sort, strive to live a life a virtue and through this some would probably qualify for the higher mysteries if they really apply themselves.

There is certainly a lot more to be said about all of this, but this is my pithy answer to your question.  

You wrote:

Of course, the picture being painted by more recent finds is a whole other story: that even from the beginning there was a vast diversity of belief and practice, Jesus meant many things to many people, and there were all sorts of groups vying for position as the legitimate heirs to the Christian message.  When that is understood, the fact that one of those sects happened to gain imperial favor and was then imposed on the whole empire at the expense of all others becomes inconsequential as far as spiritual truth and authority is concerned.

But the spritual truths have survived in spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefully all these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed!  It is actually a wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.  

Peace,
Beth  

[Beth]

Ex,

You wrote:

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

tee-hee....that's funny....

I am a religion scholar Ex and I happen to also love and appreciate fiction....The Da Vinci Code is one type of fiction (and it was entertaining enough for a two-day turn around) but the fiction that I love the most, that I have devoted many years to, and will continue to devote the majority of my time to, are books titled: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers....Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts...Revelation, etc.  

IMO these are The Greatest Stories Ever Told.

Peace,
Beth

[Palehorse]

Original Christianity was an advanced branch of the ancient Greek enclyclica, or in 21st century speak--educational curriculum--that was fundamental to ancient Judaism as well as the Greek mystery traditions. This curriculum was all of the expected topics such as grammar, mathematics, astronomy, science, literature, music, art, and ethics. Early Christianity was probably much like our American high school or university level education, where all of these general topics had already been studied and then through the literature of the Greek philosophers and an allegorical interpretation of biblical scripture, the higher 'mysteries' were then studied in depth.

As per my current understanding, wouldn't this be a more apt description of, for instance, 2nd century Alexandrian Christianity though, rather than Christianity as a whole?  In the 1st century, the focus was primarily on survival and the expected eschaton, which I believe was fulfilled by the war from 63-70.  As such, Christians didn't really have the luxury of developing well established schools and receiving education, and the allegorical interpretation of scripture wasn't really introduced until it found its fullest expression in the works of Origen decades later.  These folks were much more preoccupied with their belief that the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime.  And I suppose, in a sense, it did.

Additionally, I'm under the impression that we can't really make generalizations about what "early Christianity was..." since as I was saying before, there was so much diversity represented under that umbrella.  Sure, there were the intellectuals... but there were also the charismatic groups, the "Judaizers," the mystery cults, the folk religion aspect... and so on.  Plus, there was a reason Celsus criticized Christianity for being "a religion of women, children and slaves," i.e. the lower class: on the whole it was radically egalitarian for the time, even if it did have its "spiritual elite."  

What has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.

I agree that the rational mind was important, but it wasn't the be-all end-all.  Equally or perhaps more important was gnosis, the mystical experiential knowing that only comes via revelation, and cannot be approached by reason alone.  The distinction between Christianity and capital-G-Gnosticism of course came later, but I would argue that gnosis was still an integral concept from the beginning. (I realize you addressed gnosis later in your post... but here you make it sound like rationalism was the main ideology of early Christianity, which I have to disagree with, assuming I haven't misunderstood.)

A few important points here: 1) the ancient synagogues were, according to Philo of Alexandria, their educational institutions,

But Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.  This may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.  However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews was uncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course.

Again, I would say that not everyone could become this kind of Christian... but there were still factions within Christianity that welcomed everyone.  In the canonical NT for instance, we see entire families and large crowds being baptized en masse.  See also: the aforementioned criticism from Celsus.

3) It also required the dedication to learn of and live a virtuous life--this was actually very important,

Agreed.

3) At some point--if one was found worthy--he/she was invited to become a member in the highest mysteries, or what Origen of Alexandria referred to as true Christianity. These higher mysteries concentrated on the more metaphysical aspects of knowledge as well as those of personal experience.

I agree with this assessment, though I would place the distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity, rather than between Christian and not Christian.  It's all a matter of how far into the rabbit hole one cared to venture, I suppose.

While the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.

Very heavily stressed, heh.  What lead you to that conclusion?  From what I've seen, namely the seemingly endless stream of dialogues, refutation, slander, condemnation and so forth that came from all three sides (Christian/Jewish/Pagan) during those first few centuries, it seems the relationship between many (most?) Christians and their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem to indicate.  For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competing factions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1 John 2).

But the spritual truths have survivedin spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefullyall these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed! It is actuallya wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.

Definitely agree with this.  I believe the politico-religious institution of temple-centered Judaism was done away with after having fulfilled its purpose, so that the new outpouring of a more life-affirming, personal, individualized truth could survive and flourish.  Unfortunately certain lessons were not learned, and still more monolithic institutions were promptly erected in Jesus' name shortly after his lifetime.  Claiming to operate in the best interest of the faithful, it inserted itself into the void left by the Jewish temple, and proceeded to monopolize "orthodoxy" and choke out living spirituality in much the same way.  I see a similar day of reckoning on the horizon for institutional Christianity (or Churchianity, as I'm fond of calling it), perhaps even sooner than we think... and I know I'm not the only one feeling these birth pangs.  Such transitions often prove to be rather messy and painful for the material-minded folks still hanging on for dear life, but ultimately, we all only stand to benefit in the long run.  Incidentally, the hope for such an unveiling is the reason behind the quote in my sig.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply.  Though we seem to disagree on a few things, I respect the amount of study you've put into all this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with someone who's been at this for a while longer than I have.

Maranatha,
--PH

[Gandalf]

hmm well i am no expert on early christianity unlike some here, but I am aware of my own ancient history professors who are quite clear that early christinity was without doubt a mystery cult, small numbers who would know personal salvation and revelation through being members.. it was never the idea to evangelise to everyone so that all could be part of it, as this ruined the effect of it being a mystery religion. As someone said 'if everyone wanted to be a christian at that time, the christians wouldnt want them'.
But of course, cults and religions evolve over time, just like everything else.

Doug

[Beth]

Dear Palehorse,

You wrote:

As per my current understanding, wouldn't this be a more apt description of, for instance, 2nd century Alexandrian Christianity though, rather than Christianity as a whole? In the 1st century, the focus was primarily on survival and the expected eschaton, which I believe was fulfilled by the war from 63-70.  As such, Christians didn't really have the luxury of developing well established schools and receiving education, and the allegorical interpretation of scripture wasn't really introduced until it found its fullest expression in the works of Origen decades later.  These folks were much more preoccupied with their belief that the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime.  And I suppose, in a sense, it did.

First of all, you are comparing what I have suggested to the standard understanding of the events of the first-third centuries.  I think too much has been taken literally in this regard.  Because of the fact that New Testament scripture is all the actual history we have to rely upon (except Josephus) there is a constant tension between biblical history and what real history quite possibly was.  Was there really a belief in an eschaton, or is that the impression we are left with from scripture?  As to Origen being the primary church father to teach allegorically, you are mistaken there.  Allegorical interpretions were banned when Origen's teachings were banned, but as early as the writer of the Pauline epistles and the book of Galatians "Sarah and Hagar" were being taught allegorically as "the heavenly journey to Jerusalem" and "the earthly journey to Jerusalem."  Then about a century or so later, Clement also used allegorical interpretation before Origen.   May I suggest a different approach?  Instead of relying upon scripture to inform you of what happened (in case that is all spiritual fiction) read up on Philo of Alexandria who died around 50-60 of the current era and would have been a contemporary of the earliest Christians.  

Additionally, I'm under the impression that we can't really make generalizations about what "early Christianity was..." since as I was saying before, there was so much diversity represented under that umbrella.  Sure, there were the intellectuals... but there were also the charismatic groups, the "Judaizers," the mystery cults, the folk religion aspect... and so on.  Plus, there was a reason Celsus criticized Christianity for being "a religion of women, children and slaves," i.e. the lower class: on the whole it was radically egalitarian for the time, even if it did have its "spiritual elite."

It will not be easy to unravel the earliest Christianity to discover what it was really all about, but it can be done to a great extent.  You should also know that I am basing my opinion of this on my own research which I am in the process of getting published.  In it you will be able to see a very different original Christianity, but until then, like I said above, look to other first century sources outside of the New Testament and see if you can find corroborating evidence for your own conclusions.  That is what I have had to do!

What has totally fallen through the cracks of time is that original Christianity was not even a religion per se, it was about the acquisition of knowledge--of expanding and using the rational mind to learn as much as one had the capacity to learn.

Equally or perhaps more important was gnosis, the mystical experiential knowing that only comes via revelation, and cannot be approached by reason alone.  

What if "revelatory gnosis" is actually the experience of pure reason and the knowledge received from such an experience?

But Philo of Alexandria was a Jew.

As were all first and second century Christians.

This may have been true prior to 70 AD when the majority of Christians were still Jews, and Christianity was still a messianic sect within Judaism.  However, the relationship between Christian Jews and Rabbinic Jews was uncomfortable at best and violent at worst (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) until after the war, when that relationship was finally severed for good.

Once again, approach this from a different angle and see what you find.

I wrote:

2) not everyone could become a Christian--it required a great deal of study and dedication as well as the ability to stay the course.

To which you responded:

Again, I would say that not everyone could become this kind of Christian... but there were still factions within Christianity that welcomed everyone.  In the canonical NT for instance, we see entire families and large crowds being baptized en masse.  See also: the aforementioned criticism from Celsus.

Sure, whole families were baptised and made Christian families--but not as we think of that today.  These families were still of certain economic means; it would not be until much later that the general populas was brought into the fold, so to speak, and by then the original mysteries were either lost--or safely guarded within the elite Church hierarchy.  

Take Origen's family for instance.  We know that his father recognized Origen's high intellect at an early age and had him educated appropriately--in the Greek tradition.  We also know that the members of this family were also early Christians--and while not a wealthly family, there was a financial benefactor involved in Origen's education.  Origen's father actually died a martyr--leaving the young Origen in charge of the struggling family.  Origen did not go out and preach the Christian message--he completed his education and became head of the school that Clement had once headed up, which actually taught that Christ was The Educator of the Rational Mind and the Virtuous Soul.  Clement and Origen were teachers--not preachers.  You have to dig to find this information Palehorse, because it has not been advertised for obvious reasons, but the information is out there that shines a very different light on the earliest decades of Christianity.  

You wrote:

I agree with this assessment, though I would place the distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity, rather than between Christian and not Christian.  It's all a matter of how far into the rabbit hole one cared to venture, I suppose.

"True Christianity" versus "non-Christianity" is a distinction that Origen made not me.  Now, what I think he was getting at, was that the majority of people exposed to the offerings of the early Church could only go so far--partaking of only the milk (instead of the meat--metaphorically speaking)--and this would be the exoteric or outer teachings--the literal interpretation or general interpretation of scripture.  It was not until one moved past the general/literal and into the allegorical that one could see/experience the truth of what scripture was trying to communicate.  In order to do this, you had to have studied all the languages involved (Semitic, Greek and probably also some Latin at that point,) as well as the courses of study that the topics would cover, such as grammar, literature, the sciences, astronomy and metaphysics.  All in all, it took a high level of education to understand scripture from an esoteric perspective.  This was, according to Origen, the True Christian Message.

I wrote:

While the earliest Christians stressed the importance of studying a variety of cultures and disiciplines, the use of discernment was heavily stressed.

To which you responded:

Christians and their contemporaries wasn't nearly as friendly as you seem to indicate. For that matter, we see the same from Christians of competing factions amongst each other, and occasionally amongst themselves (1 John 2).

I am not sure where using discernment in learning of other cultures would lead you to think I was implying that everyone was "friendly"??  

But the spritual truths have survived in spite of one sect becoming the Roman Catholic Church and hopefullyall these spiritual truths will eventually be revealed! It is actuallya wonderful time (and not a decade too soon!) for a new fresh look at this ancient tradition to come into our consciouness.

I see a similar day of reckoning on the horizon for institutional Christianity (or Churchianity, as I'm fond of calling it), perhaps even sooner than we think... and I know I'm not the only one feeling these birth pangs.  Such transitions often prove to be rather messy and painful for the material-minded folks still hanging on for dear life, but ultimately, we all only stand to benefit in the long run.  Incidentally, the hope for such an unveiling is the reason behind the quote in my sig.

Yes, there are certainly a lot of scholars involved here, and much of what I have found in my own research will no doubt contribute that this. Once again, it is Reason that is chomping at the bit of irrational faith-based beliefs.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply.  Though we seem to disagree on a few things, I respect the amount of study you've put into all this, and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with someone who's been at this for a while longer than I have.

And I appreciate yours as well!  We need, however, to remember that to seek and to find we must look everywhere for our answers...but most especially outside of the box.  That "box" being, the church's official position as well as many standard academic teachings.

Peace,
Beth