#gnostic paul

[santmat]

Paul in Marcion's Apostolikon seems more mystical and gnostic. It reminds me of the Gospel of Truth by Valentinus, such as the passage below from Paul's letter to the Laodiceans (later on renamed Ephesians). This is from, The First New Testament - Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, Jason David BeDuhn, POLEBRIDGE PRESS. "He made known to us] the initiation about his will, according to the pleasing thought that he strategized [in himself] 10 for implementation of the completion of the opportune times, to sum up everything in the Christos, the things in the celestial spheres and on the earth . . . 12 that we should exist for the praise of glory, we who have previously hoped in the Christos, 13 in whom you also, when you heard the true teaching—the proclamation—and when you trusted in it, you were sealed by the sacred spirit of his promise. . . . "17 . . . May the Father of glory give you a spirit of wisdom [and revelation by experience of him], 18 when the eyes of your heart have been illuminated, [that you may know what is the hope to which he called you, what are the glorious] riches of his inheritance among the sacred ones, 19 [and what is the superlative] greatness of his power [for we who trust . . . 20 with] which he has operated in the Christos when he awakened him from the dead and seated him at his right hand [among the supercelestials."

[raspberryzingaaa]

Fake quote people attribute to Lewis: "i have a body, I AM a soul"

Real Lewis: "Man has held three views of his body. First there is that of those acetic Pagans who called it the prison or the ‘tomb’ of the soul, and of Christians like Fisher to whom it was a ‘sack of dung’, food for worms, filthy, shameful, a source of nothing but temptation to bad men and humiliation to good ones. Then there are the Neo-Pagans (they seldom know Greek), the nudists and the sufferers from Dark Gods, to whom the body is glorious. But thirdly we have the view which St. Francis expressed by calling his body ‘Brother Ass’. All three may be – I am not sure – defensible; but give me St. Francis for my money.

Ass is exquisitely right because no one in his senses can either revere or hate a donkey. It is a useful, sturdy, lazy, obstinate, patient, lovable and infuriating beast; deserving now a stick and now a carrot; both pathetically and absurdly beautiful. So the body."

[non-conventionnel]

How did the first concept of God originate?

Who was Yahweh and who was Moses? Where did the Ten Commandments originate from?

Who was Jesus Christ, and what do the Gospels which were left out of the New Testament say?

Who was St Paul, and which was the first Church before the Roman Catholic one?

How did the papal pontificate originate, and what were the repercussions of the false document which was supposedly left to the Church by Emperor Constantine the Great in order to cling to power?

Was there a different scenario to how things could have unfolded? This book, backed by the discoveries which have occurred in the last centuries, will tackle these questions unearthing new ones in the process.

"In this book, author Anton Sammut undertakes a challenging task in a race to uncover various aspects affecting the development of religion in relation to culture. This task is considered delicate and for some even dangerous. Delicate because it requires meticulous research and gathering of information; dangerous because it ventures far beyond the borders of religion which we normally restrict ourselves to because they offer security and certainty. In this respect, this book will appeal hugely to those who are not satisfied with what they have been instructed but are interested in exploring how the information arrived to them."

- Rev. Dr René Camilleri

"The laborious and careful exercise carried out by Mr Sammut, both on the Bible as well as on the History of the Church, is intended to assist the reader to view both of them from an angle which we are not accustomed to. This type of mental exercise is always useful, especially when the thoroughly researched and examined subject is not easy, not necessarily understood in one way, and is more complex than the human brain can handle."

- Rev. Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott

Anton Sammut's Fb Page

Goodreads

[friend-of-ferret]

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas passages that feel extremely Locked Tomb 2 of ?

Line 4-7 of passage 22 of the portion found in the Nag Hammadi Libary as translated by Harold Bloom:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the the [Kingdom].

[shesarainbow]

The history of the devil and the idea of evil : from the earliest times to the present day, Paul Carus

[bluecollarbiblicalscholar]

New Age Movement - It's Pervasive Influence Today

I originally wrote this blog post in 2006 as an undergraduate essay towards my B.A. in Christian Ministries. It is amazing how revelatory this actually is. The New Age Movement is very diverse and at the same time, hidden. In the nineteenth century, Paganism began to rise from seclusion in America to popular acceptance by the 1960’s and 70’s. Despite appearances however, and a name that sounds…

[tristansherwin]

CHRIST | CHOREOGRAPHY OR DANCE (Col. 2:8—3:4)

CHRIST | CHOREOGRAPHY OR DANCE (Col. 2:8-3:4) "Our faith is not about trying to attract God with our fancy footwork. Our faith is an embrace of God's movements."

Here’s my longer sermon notes from this morning’s Metro Christian Centre service (dated 2nd July 2023), continuing our series in the letter Colossians. You can also catch up with this via MCC’s YouTube channel (just give us time to get the video uploaded). ‘’Chaps who did taps aren’t tapping anymore They’re doing choreography Chicks who did kicks aren’t kicking anymore They’re doing…

[a-queer-seminarian]

I made these charts to provide an easy reference guide for comparing the four Gospels! Feel free to share around wherever.

I think tumblr's crunching up these images so visit here for crisper versions (plus they're table format instead of png format).

Alt text version is under the readmore, necessarily formatted slightly differently but with all the same info.

TEXT ONLY / NON CHART VERSION:

Images show two charts, each credited to Avery Arden with a note that the material largely derives from the abridged version of Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament.

Chart 1: Comparing the Gospels, Part 1 – historical context

Mark

When: 

Late 60s/early 70s

Who:

Jewish

Multi-lingual — peppers Aramaic into the Greek

Where:

Rome or Syria (clearly unfamiliar with Palestinian geography)

To whom:

Mainly to Gentiles new to Christianity who were experiencing persecution

Priorities:

Encourage audience and show them how their suffering fit into Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God

Matthew:

When: 

Late 70s/80s

Who: 

Jewish 

Also multi-lingual, with Aramaic phrases;

Greek more polished than Mark’s

Where:

Probably in or near Antioch (in Syria); possibly Galilee

To Whom: 

Mainly to well-educated Jews who were debating internally about how Jewish tradition fit into following Jesus

Priorities: 

Promote Messiah Jesus who fulfills audience’s Jewish scriptures

inform church life and structure

Luke

When:

mid-to-late-80s

Who:

Gentile (possibly Jewish convert)

Educated Greek “historian” familiar with Septuagint; no use of Aramaic; expert use of Greek

Where:

Probably Greece; possibly Syria; also unfamiliar with Palestine

To whom:

Mainly to wealthy Gentiles influenced by Paul’s mission; living in an urban setting

Priorities:

Promote Isaiah-like Jesus; challenge audience to live out faith more actively (e.g., by redistributing wealth)

John

When: 

90s / as late as 110

Who:

Jewish 

Student(s) of “the Beloved Disciple” (the “Johannine school”)

Where:

Traditionally Ephesus; possibly Syria

To whom:

To a mixed crowd of Jews & Gentiles, at a time when tensions between Jews who did & didn’t follow Jesus had reached an all-time high

Priorities:

Promote Jesus’s divinity; strengthen unity in a group increasingly defining itself as separate from Jewish ones

Chart 2: Comparing the Gospels, Part 2 — Thematic Content

Mark

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Jesus as miracle-worker / healer; human being 

Unafraid to depict human limitations & emotions in Jesus

Other defining attributes / content:

Focuses on Jesus’s actions, e.g., his miracles; as well as on his suffering and death

Originally ended with the empty tomb & fear; no resurrection relief

The disciples often fail to understand Jesus; Jesus is frequently secretive about his identity

Matthew

Emphasizes Jesus as:

A Moses figure, Messiah, Son of God; teacher

Removes descriptions that make Jesus seem limited, naïve

Other defining attributes / content:

Beatitudes (ch. 5); judgment of the “sheep and goats” (ch. 25); 

Instructions for intracommunal relationships; forgiveness; “Great Commission” (ch. 28)

Polishes Mark’s depiction of the disciples to present them more favorably (esp. Peter as the “rock” of the church)

Luke

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Self-aware Son of God; prophet of the poor

Removes descriptions that make Jesus seem emotional, harsh, or weak

Other defining attributes / content:

Beatitudes (ch. 6) — with added “woes”; frequent warnings about risks of wealth

Also depicts disciples more favorably

Favorable depictions of tax collectors as sinners on the way to redemption; 

negative views of Pharisees as rejectors of Jesus, juxtaposed with stories of Gentiles who express faith

John

Emphasizes Jesus as:

Divine, the Word / “I Am” made flesh; lamb of God

Often misunderstood by disciples & crowds due to his use of figurative language

Other defining attributes / content:

Poetic format, full of symbolism; similarities to Gnostic texts that arose in the same era

Lots of “testimony” and “signs”

Despite Jesus & his disciples being Jewish, John depicts “the Jews” as being against Jesus; his Jesus says things like “It is written in your law…”

[santmat]

Third Eye During Meditation: "Close your eyes as in sleep, and look sweetly, lovingly, intently into the middle of the darkness lying in front of you. You will see a dark veil. That which sees the dark veil within, without the help of your physical eyes, IS the inner eye." (Master Kirpal Singh) Finding Your Third Eye, Seeing What You Can See - Initiation Into the Mysteries - Spiritual Awakening Radio @ Youtube: https://youtu.be/YmEJWdH2kII and @ wherever you follow podcasts (Apple, Spotify, etc…): https://www.SpiritualAwakeningRadio.com Everyone has their own third eye whether they realize it or not. Through the Divine Path of Initiation one will learn of the spiritual practices that make it possible to access the third eye center, the seat of the soul, within the temple of the human body. We will discover for ourselves the Mysteries of the Spirit. The Kingdom of the Heavens will open up before us on this inward journey of the soul as we travel through vast realms of Light, Sound and Love on our way back to God. Today we explore Initiation, East and West, at first making use of Marcion's Reconstructed New Testament Apostolicon featuring an amazing, rather old and Gnostic sounding, translation of Saint Paul's First Corinthians chapter two, verses 6 through nine complete with archons and aeons. This manuscript from antiquity actually uses the word "Initiation". The goal of this Initiation is seeing in a new way with another kind of inner spiritual vision, the eye of the soul, and inner hearing with the ear of the soul. This is where we leave the outer world of the five senses behind. This is where we progress from theory, religion or philosophy to the world of practice, of inner experience. This is where the spiritual path truly begins. Also explored: The Gospel of Thomas on what "Eye Has Not Seen, Nor Ear Heard"; the mystic poetry of Sant Tulsi Sahib of Hathras on the ascension of the soul; The Inner Journey Of The Soul Back To Its Origin, by George Arnsby Jones, an initiate of Kirpal Singh; words of encouragement and satsang discourses from Sant Kirpal Singh on Initiation and Surat Shabd Yoga, Inner Light and Sound Meditation practice (sadhana of simran, dhyan and bhajan); recent satsang discourses by Baba Ram Singh also exploring this inward journey of the soul that takes place during meditation, the interior voyage back Home. The goal of this Path is not simply going TO the various inner planes or heavens of creation but to pass THROUGH them on our way back to the Most High Supreme Being given many names such as The Ocean of Love (Anurag Sagar), The Nameless One (Anami Purush, Sat Purush), and The Lord of the Soul (Radhasoami). (RadhaSwami) In Divine Love (Bhakti), Light, and Sound, At the Feet of the Masters, James Bean Spiritual Awakening Radio Podcasts Sant Mat Satsang Podcasts Sant Mat Radhasoami A Satsang Without Walls

[cymorilcinnamonroll]

What if Mary of Bethany's brainrot phase of my writing, but worse

NaNoWriMo project count: 5 now

WAIT. BUTCH MARY MAGDALENE, FEMME YOUNG GNOSTIC MARY SALOME, AND YOUNG THECLA LESBIAN MINISTRY FIC

HELP ME HELP ME I ALREADY AM 4K WORDS INTO MY NANO

[unsoundedcomic]

Would Duane like the gnostic versions of Christianity? I thought Ssaelism took inspiration from it (or rather I thought you took inspiration from Legacy of Kain, which had loads of gnostic themes)? As a mythology, the old testament Canaan Thunder God + the Gnostic Jesus feel like a very rich world, I wish more fiction would take inspiration from it. Or was I mistaken in your sources of inspiration?

I think Duane would find gnostic Christianity more comprehensible than many of the other types (Mormonism would perk his ears too). Jesus is missing a lot of what your typical Ssaelit love about Ssael though. Ssael is so very relatable because he lived a full mortal life. Jesus never loved a partner or had kids or fought in a war; he's written as being utterly perfect and basically just a god, whether there's a demiurge out there or no. Sonum Ssael was explicitly a mortal man, with all the foibles that come with mortality, and no divine powers to elevate him above his peers; just talent, wisdom, and his labour.

There's a lot more Siddhartha Gautama in Ssael. The Buddha gave up a life of privilege in order to spread his enlightenment to others, and Duane would jive with that enormously, as well as the idea of escaping reincarnation and getting out from under the thumb of the gods.

Inspiration-wise, I pulled from all over. Because Ssaelism proclaims the demiurges WERE destroyed - not going to be destroyed, or have the potential to be destroyed, or maybe you can destroy them yourself - I always am reminded of the Olympians overthrowing the Titans. The great potential of humanity above all others, including the senets, reminds me of the potential of humans within Hinduism and Buddhism. Humans are the only ones able to consciously choose good or evil; but like senets, divine/spiritual beings are bound to act according to their nature, so their karma is stuck until they're reborn human.

I do agree that there's a lot of really interesting Christian and Jewish mythology. Early Christianity actually fascinates me a lot, and I listen to Bart Ehrman's podcast every week for a helping of it. Jesus is really the least interesting part of any of that; I'd love writers to delve more into Paul and his clashes with Peter. I think there should be a JC Superstar sequel about this, with Paul cast as like a shrewd record producer who starts recutting the hits that Jesus left behind and bickering with his "band" :D Webber, write this! Leave Phantom alone!

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

So I was reading N.T. Wright’s paper on the biblical basis for women’s service in the church (and it was pretty great imo) and he frequently refers to the idea that distinctions between man and woman no longer exist post-salvation (which for most Christian traditions means post-baptism) and condemns it as gnostic.

Note: I’ll be defining gnostic pretty loosely. Just focus on the “neglect for material physical reality in favor of a more immaterial spiritual thing” aspect.

What he is referring to is similar but not exactly like the egalitarian anthropology called “eschatological feminism”. In this view the original human, Adam, is an androgynous hermaphrodite until the fall, after which gender was created. According to this view’s interpretation of Galatians 3:28, baptism (the introduction into new creation) returns humans to that pre-fallen state of androgyny. 

There is more: Sexuality, the main division between genders, is said to be the root of female subordination. Relationships that are typically rooted in sexuality (marriage and motherhood) place women in roles that are subordinate in accordance with society's patriarchal norms. The path to equality is believed to be found when women transcend these roles —traditionally through celibacy (as seen in the life of Paul). Transcending worldly norms, which the Bible instructs Christians to do, brings men and women to the state of androgyny that eliminates gender subordination; thus, Christianity is intended to manifest gender equality. Transcendence is the core of eschatological feminism; women reach equality with men by separating from the world, rather than changing it. 

N.T. Wright doesn’t really do this perspective justice imo. Part of the reason for that is that this perspective is focused on Genesis 2 whereas Wright is focused more so on Genesis 1: “male and female he created them.” 

Eschatological feminism is actually really popular on progressive Christian tumblr (except in tetrahedra to trans theology instead of feminist theology), albeit without all of the elaborate aspects I mentioned. Actually, progressive christblr tends to be closer to Wright’s simplification of this perspective: in Genesis 1 we were made male and female, but once in Christ (which for most Christians means once baptized) there is no male nor female. 

That said, I have to agree with Tom: that is gnostic. It treats the original created state as something to be done away with and is, surprisingly, actually a lot closer to evangelical or fundamentalist perspectives on creation (theological horseshoe theory???). It shows a certain disdain or contempt for og creation and New Creation as a denial of old creation instead of a reaffirmation of it. Wright, who like Paul is a theologian of new creation, is spot on with this critique. 

Side note: Gnosticism will always be a temptation where there is a neglect for the physical and an emphasis on the spiritual. Since eschatological feminism is inspired by asceticism and mysticism, it makes sense that it would have gnostic tendencies. And the same can be said for evangelicalism. Tho it is not ascetic or mystical, it does see material reality is both distinct from and lower than nonmaterial reality. 

That said. I don’t think that eschatological feminism or trans theology has to be intrinsically gnostic. 

Asceticism and mysticism 

Adam being originally androgynous 

Female subordination being the result of the fall

Baptism as New Humanity (in which subordination and oppression can no longer be tolerated)

Elevation of the status of single people

Gender equality 

Separation from human made power structures 

All of these things are really good things and are key aspects of eschatological feminism. None of them are heretical. However

The harsh view of sex, marriage, and motherhood

The treatment of creation as something to be done away with

The idea of sex and/or gender as fundamentally bad

View of Christianity as escapist

All of those are unbiblical. But, I think both eschatological feminism and trans theology can get on well without them. 

[httpsoftbunni]

Creation as an Outpouring of Divine Light

In esoteric Christian metaphysics, creation is not viewed as a mechanistic or external act of God. Instead, it is understood as an emanation, an outpouring of divine light, radiating from the Godhead into the manifest world. This concept links closely with ancient Christian mystical thought, as well as other mystical traditions like Neoplatonism and Kabbalah.

The Cosmic Flow of Light

God’s act of creation is seen as a flowing forth from the infinite Source, much like light pouring from the sun. In the Logos theology of early Christian mystics, especially in the Johannine writings, creation is brought into existence through the divine Word or Logos. The Logos is the principle of order and reason, the blueprint of creation, and it is through the Logos that God manifests Himself in the material world.

In this emanational view, all of creation is interconnected, arising from the same divine source. The physical world is not separate from the spiritual realm but is an expression of it, albeit in a more condensed and limited form. Everything in the cosmos is infused with the divine light, though this light becomes more hidden and fragmented as it moves from higher, more subtle spiritual planes into lower, denser forms of material existence.

This cosmology echoes the teachings of early Christian mystics, as well as the Hermetic and Gnostic traditions. In these traditions, creation is seen as a series of descending planes or aeons, each level becoming more removed from the pure divine light but still retaining an imprint of the sacred.

The Material World as a Reflection of Higher Realities

From this perspective, the material world is not something to be entirely rejected but understood as a symbolic representation of higher spiritual realities. The physical world, though often veiled and dim, is a reflection of the spiritual worlds. The Apostle Paul alludes to this when he speaks of the "invisible things of God" being understood through what has been made (Romans 1:20).

The process of spiritual awakening in esoteric Christianity involves learning to see the world in this symbolic way—recognizing that all created things point back to their divine source. This is why many esoteric traditions speak of the "Book of Nature" as another form of divine revelation, where the wise can read the hidden mysteries of God in the patterns of creation.

The Fall and Fragmentation of Divine Light

However, esoteric Christianity also teaches that the divine light in creation has been obscured or fragmented due to the Fall. This "fall" is not necessarily a literal event involving Adam and Eve but rather a metaphysical process where the soul and material world have descended into lower levels of vibration, becoming more bound by duality, ignorance, and ego.

In this fallen state, the divine spark within creation and within the human soul becomes hidden under layers of illusion. This is symbolized by the "clothing of skins" in the Genesis narrative, where the human soul, originally radiant with divine light, becomes clothed in the heavier, more constricting garments of physical matter and egoic self-identity.

Reuniting the Fragmented Light

The spiritual journey in esoteric Christianity involves the reunification and healing of this fragmented light. The soul, through contemplative practices, inner purification, and divine grace, seeks to ascend back through the layers of reality, reuniting with the original, undivided light of God.

In this process, the Logos plays a central role, as Christ is the mediator between the infinite, transcendent God and the fallen world of duality. Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are not merely historical events but metaphysical realities that make the reunification of the soul with God possible. Christ is the archetypal pattern of divine light descending into material form and returning to the Father, carrying all creation with Him.

[eternal-echoes]

“For ages, philosophers and scientists have grappled with the question of what it means to be human. Thousands of years ago, Gnostics and Manicheans adopted a dualist view of the human person. In short, it is the creed that professes "I'm not my body." A similar philosophy was promoted by the French thinker René Descartes, whose idea of the human mind was summarized by others as the "ghost in the machine." This view of the human person now serves as the foundation of gender theory: that if gender is tied to sex, the person becomes a slave to his or her body. As Robert P. George wrote, "The idea that human beings are non-bodily persons inhabiting non-personal bodies never quite goes away."(15)

The Church's answer to this disintegration of the human person is an integrated vision of man. To the question, "Can we trust the body to reveal the truth of the person?" the Church would utter an emphatic yes! The human body reveals the person. This teaching, rather than being an imposition from religious authorities, is something people naturally believe.

For example, if you were to say, "I am going to the store," it's safe to say that your body is going there as well. In other words, you don't have a body. You are a body. It's not something you merely have, like you have a pair of jeans. Your body is you. This is not to say that a person is the sum of his or her parts. A woman is not a woman because she has female parts. Rather, she has female parts because she is a woman.

Because the body reveals the person, it is a visible expression of the reality of who you are as a man or woman. So, instead of the materialistic idea that chromosomes plus gonads plus anatomy equals sex, the Church would propose that the human person is not a sexless being that "has" a male or female body. Rather, it is the human person-male or female-who is sexed, and this reality is expressed in and through the body. As Saint John Paul II explained, "It is typical of rationalism to make a radical contrast in man between spirit and body, between body and spirit. But man is a person in the unity of his body and his spirit. The body can never be reduced to mere matter: it is a spiritualized body, just as man's spirit is so closely united to the body that he can be described as an embodied spirit.”(16) … Therefore, the human body alone has the power to make visible the invisible reality of personhood.(17) Put simply, your sex is not what you have, but who you are. Thus, a person's identity is revealed in and through the body, not by one's feelings about the body.

If the body is a reliable revelation, this is good news. It means that the body is not meaningless, but meaningful! The body is the firm foundation of man's sexual identity. One's sex defines our identity, expresses the person, and reveals the soul.(18) As Cardinal Christoph Schönborn declared, "The beauty is real and reliable. Its light can be traced back to God's original guiding intention for man and woman."(19)

-Jason Evert, Male, Female, or Other: A Catholic Guide to Understanding Gender

—

Work cited:

15) Robert George, "Gnostic Liberalism," First Things, December 2016.

16) Gratissimam Sane 19.

17) Cf. John Paul II, TOB 19:4.

18) Cf. John Paul II, TOB 14:4; 20:5.

19) Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, preface, Pope John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them (New York: Pauline Books and Media, 2006), xxiv-xxv.

—

For more recommended resources on gender dysphoria, click here.

[tristansherwin]

CHRIST | ACCESS ALL AREAS (Col. 1:1-8)

CHRIST | ACCESS ALL AREAS (Col. 1:1-8) 'If you want to know the whole of God, the depth of who God is, the so-called "hiddenness" of God, then Jesus has revealed it all.'

Here’s my longer sermon notes from this morning’s Metro Christian Centre service (dated 21st May 2023), introducing our new series in the letter Colossians. You can also catch up with this via MCC’s YouTube channel (just give us time to get the video uploaded). ‘One life but we’re not the sameWe get to carry each other, carry each otherOne’ U2, One, Actung Baby, 1991 READ: COLOSSIANS 1:1—8…

[jeannereames]

Did Christianity change the perception of Alexander in a meaningful way?

Christianity and Alexander the Great

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the rise of Christianity didn’t really alter perceptions of Alexander that much, largely for two reasons.

First, imperial authors (both Greek and Latin) had already shaped those perceptions according to popular philosophic virtues—using Alexander as either an exempla of Bad Behavior or of Proper Restraint (or both, depending on the writer).

Second, in an attempt to gain acceptance, or at least tolerance, for Christianity among the larger Roman imperial public, some early Christian theologians began presenting Christianity as a form of philosophy (Justin Martyr and Origen are good examples, as well as Augustine later). Some non-Christian philosophers fought back directly (Celsus and Plotinus, most notably), and some Christian authors actively resisted this “philosophizing” of Christianity (Tertullian). Yet several philosophic ideas (and ideals) seeped into early Christian thought in ways that might have surprised Jesus.

Probably the most influential were Neoplatonism (thank you, Origen), and Stoicism. Notions of self-control, ataraxia (equilibrium), and asceticism folded into Christianity as early as Paul, but certainly by Justin Martyr (early/middle first century CE) and Origen (early second century CE). These then became part of Christian discourse. Christian Gnosticism, after all, is just a particular flavor of gnostic thought found throughout the Mediterranean and ancient near east. Gnosticism owes to Neoplatonism mixing with an influx of Persian and Hindu notions that had floated west even before Alexander but certainly accelerated after. (One could even debate to what degree Plato himself was influenced by eastern ideas; after all, philosophy was born in Asia Minor with Thales & Friends, then bypassed mainland Greece for a bit to land in Sicily and south Italy. Athens was a johnny-come-lately to the party.)

In any case, “Alexander” had already been firmly situated in philosophic and rhetorical discourse in ways that were easily adopted and adapted by Church theologians. He remained a negative example of anger and worldly ambition, and a positive one of (military) leadership and physical (especially sexual) restraint.

One might point to the elimination of Alexander’s bisexual interests as Christianizing, but that’s too simple. We already find Roman literature headed that way. Romans had mixed receptions of “Greek love,” even when expressed “properly” between older men and younger boys/male slaves. It’s Roman Curtius who gives us the very negative impact of the eunuch Bagoas as part of the larger depiction of Alexander corrupted by Eastern (Asian) influence. It’s also Curtius, however, who gives us clues to other (freeborn) boys who may have been Alexander’s beloveds, but always presented in coded language as “favorites.” There’s more to say about that, but it depicts pretty well, imo, the Roman mixed mind on the matter. Also, Plutarch’s presentation of Alexander’s indignation when offered pretty boys is, even now, used by those who want to deny Alexander’s interest in males. While we can quibble over exactly what Plutarch meant Alexander to object to (it’s important to contextualize where this anecdote appears), it’s certainly not the open praise of beautiful boys found in, say, the poetry of Solon.

None of that is Christian.

Also—and conversely—we find several Renaissance-and-later paintings that depict Hephaistion and Alexander, some homoeroticized, such as the tapestry made from LeBrun’s sketch of Alexander taking leave of Hephaistion (by kissing him). Yes, kissing was a normal hello and goodbye, but the overtones are, imo, intentional.

It’s really not until the latter 1800s that Hephaistion starts to disappear from ATG discourse as heightened homophobic fears require him to be excised from Alexander’s narrative to protect the conqueror from THOSE allegations. Yes, that’s related to Christianity, but I’d argue it’s more about rising homophobia in Europe, even if Christianity is used as the excuse—just as slavery pre-existed Christianity, but Christianity was later employed to justify its continuation.

So, perhaps surprisingly, no, Christianity didn’t significantly alter popular consciousness of Alexander.

I’m not a specialist on the Alexander Romance, but it’s here you’d find more obvious Christianizing, and Islamizing, as well. Look up the work of Richard Stoneman on the Romance. Also checkout Ken Moore’s Brill's Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great.