Gnosticism is a syncrete of Orphism (Pythagoreanism) and Christianity. Its message is antithetical to Christ's, and by A.D. 60-66, disciples were writing against its teachings.

It's definitely not the original Christianity in any true sense of the word. It continues to influence modern Rome-derived Christianity, and, in that sense, it is nearly the original perversion of Christianity.

Also: wrong sub, mostly.

Its writings are considered some of the earliest Christian teachings.

By people who are wrong.

Also, arguably its teachings can be traced back to before Christ.

I agree that this is true, and submit this is all the evidence you should need to realize that Gnosticism is not a form of Christianity.

Which writings were these?

I'm writing a book on the subject and don't want to get scooped.

I would rather believe science versus opinion.

"science?" lol.

As for "opinion," just by connecting Gnosticism to Orphism for OP, I've given him plenty of factual basis to pursue research that will confirm what I've written. It's not opinion that Gnosticism is derived from Orphism, it's just an observation.

Or, thinking logically and looking at it plausibly, 'modern' Christianity descended from a preceding philosophy as with most philosophies/religions.

Or, thinking logically and examining the historical evidence, 'modern' Christianity descended from the teachings of Jesus Christ, corrupted with pre-existing beliefs found among the "Hellenized Jews."

Not even the name of the supposed person that wrote against them in AD 60?

I don't like your tone, nor your approach. Obviously, if I wanted to point you in the direction of what I've found, I would have. You can write "supposed" all you want, it doesn't make you appear intelligent as you seem to wish.

I just think you're making up stuff, you don't know or you're incorrect. No offense intended.

You have my permission to think whatever false thing you want.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there some Gnostic sects that attempted to amalgamate their own version of Christ's (purported) teachings into their beliefs?

This would have been more along the lines of shaping some of the new Christian dogma to fit their existing religious convictions, rather than changing their beliefs to fit what the early Christians were teaching. Which, assuming I'm correct (haven't studied Gnosticism in a while), could potentially explain OP's confusion.

Gnosticism is an imprecise term, and the answer determines how you define that term.

Orphism predated Christianity and Gnosticism. Jews who believed in a Judaism/Orphism syncrete are nowadays called the "Hellenized Jews." After Christianity, Orphism continued to exist and some of the cults (Orphism is, by definition, a cult due to its secrecy) absorbed the new Christian teachings. Others created competing beliefs that were responses to Christianity. Today, all of these cults are called "Gnostic." What they have in common are origins in Orphism, and continued teachings of Orphism.

You can find small traces of Orphism even in the Bible. Simon the Cyrenean is an obscure example of such. The presence of a Cyrenean at the crucifixion march is significant.

I appreciate your response, thanks. I was somewhat trying to simplify things a bit, and again, am more than a bit rusty in my studies on this topic.

Which of the disciples went which way and how did the winners dictate how history records it?

It's funny that people think this thread doesn't belong in conspiracy.

The other guy you're arguing with pointlessly is much more educated on this topic than I am. If you'd pay attention to what he's saying and take it under consideration rather than responding in a hostile or dismissive manner, you might find that you are being provided with a great deal of useful information on this subject. Moreso than I can provide.

Can you suggest some sources we could look into for what you have hinted at as 'true' or 'original' Christianity?

That depends. Do you read Koine Greek?

BTW, I surmise from your tone that you aren't really 'interested' in an intellectual 'honest' way.

You could have answered the question instead of making a rude (and incorrect) implication.

What can I look into if I'm interested in this?

The best place to start is by studying the Greek N.T. along with the Greek Orphist writings. Once you have got that under your belt, learn Syriac, and compare.

If you just want the Cliff's Notes that point you to some already-translated material, your best sources are the Sermon on the Mount and Acts.

some already-translated material

Are there translations you would recommend to start with? I'm just now trying to understand the King James Version and the changes within and this is a massive topic.

I recommend you check out the interlineal translation hosted at scripture4all.org

Thanks.

spot on

The neat thing about the TRUTH is that it needs no advocates, no proselytizing, nothing, it is complete and total unto itself. If something is TRUE nothing can PROVE it to not be so.

If the Gnostics spoke TRUTH and Jesus spoke TRUTH, nothing can undo that.

TRUTH does not depend on who said it first or who said it. It just IS.

Intention is what makes this possible. Intention is like setting a compass. If your intention is to find TRUTH, even if you make a "wrong turn", a course correction is made that puts you back on track.

A certain amount of "wrong turns" is beneficial from the stand point that once experienced these dead ends are much easier to spot.

A TEACHER can steer us and put us on the most direct path. They can also warn us of the pitfalls along the way.

The only thing required to have the benefits offered by a teacher is FAITH. In todays secular society faith is an increasingly rare commodity.

Essenes.

Try this, even more truthful: www.laurency.com

Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels is a good book explaining the history of early Christianity.

Gnosticism is primarily defined in a Christian context.[4][5] In the past, some scholars thought that gnosticism predated Christianity and included pre-Christian religious beliefs and spiritual practices argued to be common to early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism). The discussion of gnosticism changed radically with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library and led to a revision of older assumptions. To date, no pre-Christian gnostic texts have been found,[6] and gnosticism as a unique and recognizable belief system is considered to be a second century (or later) development.[7] Wikipedia: Gnosticism

spot on

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there some Gnostic sects that attempted to amalgamate their own version of Christ's (purported) teachings into their beliefs?

This would have been more along the lines of shaping some of the new Christian dogma to fit their existing religious convictions, rather than changing their beliefs to fit what the early Christians were teaching. Which, assuming I'm correct (haven't studied Gnosticism in a while), could potentially explain OP's confusion.

Can you suggest some sources we could look into for what you have hinted at as 'true' or 'original' Christianity?

The best place to start is by studying the Greek N.T. along with the Greek Orphist writings. Once you have got that under your belt, learn Syriac, and compare.

If you just want the Cliff's Notes that point you to some already-translated material, your best sources are the Sermon on the Mount and Acts.