I mean, you are right, of course, except that I do not find it terribly convincing. Is there any evidence of such hidden inner mysteries in extant texts, or allusions to lost ones? Even when Paul speaks of "mysteries," he does not conceal, but openly describes them to the extent possible. He does not state them as things known to a few initiates but reserved from outsiders and laity, but things incomprehensible to his and all mortal minds, however "enlightened." He also expounds more sophisticated doctrine in detail several times, explaining he had previously omitted (but NEVER concealed) it from readers until they were ready to receive it. There are certainly varying levels of understanding, but none are actively withheld, just not specifically mentioned to those yet too new to appreciate them.

There is no reason to believe Christianity ever deliberately concealed any doctrine (beyond Christ concealing His divinity and fated Crucifixion until near the end; "follow Me and you will all die slow excruciating deaths like Me" is a weak opener, however strong a finish. ) The only reason for anyone to believe that is the obstinate Gnostic assertion "all gods are gnosis god" and thus Christianity, like all religion past, present or future, is just a Gnostic archetype. You know them better than I: Do Thomas or the other Gnostic texts hold any admonitions to guard their deep mysteries (far less profound or transcendent than the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Atonement, Resurrection or Christs wedding to the Church) from ignorant rabble? If that were the goal, recording and disseminating it would be a poor approach.


Such as? Gnostics saying so? That kind of self-referential evidence cuts both ways, but documentation of Christianity is older and more broadly supported.


It does not fit with the proselytzing and missionaries though, particularly not for something that began as an exclusively Jewish sect. I had not thought of it in those terms, but when you put it that way the whole Gnostic premise is rather contradictory: "We want to enlighten EVERYONE by restricting our profound wisdom to our own inner circle." In that respect, Gnosticism is more vulnerable to accusations of domination and self-aggrandizement Gnostics then and Neo-Gnostics now level at the Church.

I take your point about the need for objectivity, but also that Christianitys basis (God and love) and the practices it prompts (sacrifice, fellowship, proselytizing) preclude insular secretive mystery religions. The first two could only logically arise from the last if spectacularly virulent aberrations from it. Yet all documentary evidence indicates Christianity as we understand it is the original, or at least older, doctrine, and GNOSTIC heterodoxy a later insurgency by existing elements unrelated to Christianity until they sought to absorb it. Anything is hypothetically possible, but claims Gnostic versions of Christianity are not only the older but ORIGINAL form demand more evidence than mid to late Second Century Gnostics asserting it supported by neither documentary evidence nor historic traditions.