Evolution of Christianity

Was Jesus a Christian? Would He recognize the religion that purports to be worshiping Him? Whatever your answer, I propose that the original faith of Jesus and His followers has been radically transformed into something He might find unrecognizable today. How did this happen?

In this thread, I propose to explore the metamorphosis of Christianity from Jewish cult to the world's largest religion. By "evolution", I'm talking about cultural evolution, involving the birth and propagation of memes. I'm using the term "meme" in Dawkins' original sense of "an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means"--not the popular mutant meaning of "an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media" Definition of MEME (even the term "meme" has evolved). "Memes" as Dawkins used the term, was the cultural counterpart of "genes" in biology. Like genes, memes were "selfish", in the sense of being exclusive concerned with their own survival and propagation, not necessarily the good of their hosts or humanity. If a meme attracted a popular following, that was good enough, no matter what the human cost. "Some memeticists liken memes to viruses; others say they're closer to genes. [Robert] Aunger rejects both models. To him, a meme is more like a benign parasite that's incapable of reproducing without a host, the host being the human brain." Jay Kirk, Wilson Quarterly, (Summer 2002). Definition of MEMETICS

I'm looking forward to your contributions.

 

Jesus may have been Jewish as purported by the Romans who hung the sign on his crucifixion cross "King Of The Jews". He can also be considered Galilean since that is where it is written he was from.

The evolution of Christianity is based on the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus and expands from there. Just as the Jews believe in the writings found in the Torah so do Christians along with what they refer to as The New Testament. It has been questioned that a lot of the stories are fabrications or expansions of truth thus the "memes". I doubt, based on the writings that have been put together, Jesus would approve of the way Christians function in the religion.

This happens when it is needed to subject humans to discipline and conform to narrow and controlling thought. For example the basic and largest Christian sect, Roman Catholicism, made followers pay, called indulgences, for the right to have eternal life as promised. Along with that the break up of the Catholic Church into many other sects breaks down the teachings of love Jesus commanded. Lutherans, Episcopals, Baptists, Mormons, The Church of England, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many other sects have odd and varying differences about the teachings of Jesus and what he stood for. I would think that if he were alive he would be hugely dissapointed in how his ideals were followed.

 

Very much so!

 

I see Christianity as developing in sixteen stages: (1) an anti-establishment apocalyptic Jewish movement about Jesus and the coming Kingdom in the most of the first century; (2) a predominantly Gentile movement about Jesus' death and resurrection, after 70 C.E. ; (3) an embattled sect preoccupied with doctrinal conformity and an emerging hierarchy in the second & third centuries; (4) the favored religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine and Theodosius I during most of the fourth century;
(5) the Dark Ages (500-800 c.e.) after the fall of the western empire,when the church was divided by schisms and the western church filled the power vacuum left by Rome's fall; (6) the rise of the Holy Roman Empire and focus on Church-state relations (800-1054); (7) the Great Schism and the Crusades (1054-1291), marked by a split between the western Catholic and eastern Orthodox faiths and the struggle against Islam; (8) wars against heresy (1291-1420), when crusades and the Inquisition were launched against Christian dissenters; (9) Renaissance popes and corruption (1420-1517); (10) doctrinal and institutional division into Protestant and Catholic branches during the Reformation and Counter Reformation, 1517-1648 ; (11) division into traditional and "Deist camps during the Enlightenment; and the rise of Pietism (1648-1799); (12) Evangelicals and the "First Great Awakenings" (Christianity gets emotional, 1735-1815); (13) challenges to faith: the "higher criticism" of the Bible and Darwinism (1817-1883); (14) Bible Conference movement and rise of fundamentalism: reaction against Darwin and Higher Criticism; 1883-1920; (15) social gospel movement to Progressive Christianity, 1920-1975; and (16) the rise of the radical Christian political right (and reaction by the Nones and New Atheists), (1976-present). The dates may need to be tweaked, but this is how I see it.

 

Okay, I 'll admit I started this thread to get my mind off the election results. But I hope others will get on board, since I think it's important from a religious viewpoint. Assuming there was an historical Jesus, which is the consensus of most scholars in the field with Ph.D.s after their names and articles published in refereed journals, I'll go out on a limb and identify what the earliest Christianity was about. Back then, it was called "the Way" and early Christians were called "Nazerenes". It wasn't until about 40 C.E. that the label "Christian" was introduced in Antioch, after which it gradually became accepted. (at least according to Acts11:25-26). Books abound about what the Historical Jesus was like. My own bias will show in my preference for naturalistic over super-naturalistic interpretations. I agree with Carl Sagan and Hume that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in Jesus scholarship and ancient history in general, substantial evidence (enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable people aren't convinced is probably the best we can hope for. I employ the admittedly crude methodology characteristic of most Jesus scholarship, using rules of thumb that can be challenged but are the best I think we can come up with: (a) multiple independent assertions; (b) congruence with historical context; (c) orality (pithy statements characteristic of orally transmitted material; (d) consistency with other sources; (d) internal consistency; (e) distinctiveness (dissimilarity); (f) preference for earliest sources; (g) embarrassment (things a Christian probably wouldn't say unless true cuz they would turn people off or cast doubt on other parts of the narrative) .
Jesus and the Historical Criteria | The Bart Ehrman Blog
The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup. 191)
Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method (JSHJ 7 [2009])
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp1_authenticity_stein.pdf
With this in mind, let's look at the memes.

 

(1) An anti-establishment apocalyptic Jewish movement about Jesus and the coming Kingdom. (1-70 c.e.) I take 70 c.e. , the Roman destruction of the Temple to be beginning of the end of the movement, although pockets held on until the fourth century c.e.

As best I can make out, the earliest (paleo) Christians were a lot different from the ones we know today. They began in the first century c.e.as a minor sect of Second Temple Judaism--observant Jews, who worshiped in the Temple and synagogues with non-Christian Jews, as well as in their house churches. They practiced circumcision for males and (until Peter had his dream) observed the Jewish dietary laws. And they thought of Jesus, not as a primordial being who came to save their souls, but as God's adopted Son (adoptionism) who came to show them The Way and prepare them for God's kingdom on Earth, soon to come. Peter (aka, Cephus; formerly Simon) was the original successor to Jesus as leader. After his escape from prison under Herod Agrippa I, Peter left Palestine to begin his missionary activities; and leadership of the Jerusalem Church passed to James the Just, reputedly Jesus's brother, who was not one of the original Twelve. The Jerusalem community seems to have consisted of two sects: the Ebionites, who resembled the Essenes, a highly ascetic sect associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nazoreans, a somewhat less ascetic group who seem to have been former followers of John the Baptist.



Whether or not we believe in a real historical Jesus, they did, and held certain beliefs about what He taught them. I conceptualize their basic beliefs in terms of eleven memes.

• Imminent End Times
• Jesus as Messiah
• adoptionism: Jesus as God's adopted Son, at his baptism or resurrection
• peace, love and understanding
• monotheism: one God, one person
• concern for the poor, and society's least advantaged
• Temple reform
• Resurrection
• adherence to Jewish Law: circumcision, etc.; works important for salvation
• sacraments; baptism, communion
• Proselytism (the Great Commission: go forth and teach all nations)

Of course, heresiologists of later centuries dismissed these sects as "Judaizers" who had lapsed from the true faith. It seems, though, that that was mainly propaganda.
Bart Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels

Bart Ehrman (2016). Jesus Before the Gospels
Ebionites & Nazarenes: Tracking the Original Followers of Jesus – TaborBlog
1st Century Christian Ebionites: The Original Christians?
Jewish Christianity - Wikipedia
Eusebius. Church History IV.5.2
From an evolutionary standpoint, the list of memes was problematic. Most of them were not appealing to Jews, who didn't convert in large numbers. And the early Christian adherence to Jewish law was a barrier to the last one, proselytism, since circumcision and Jewish dietary laws were a turnoff to Gentiles. Solution: relax the rules on circumcision and dietary laws, at least for Gentiles. Actually, Judaism already recognized that the Law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles, who were bound only by the Law of Noah, which didn't include such rules. https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...ish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm
However, Gentiles who followed such rules, while acceptable to God, were considered second class by the Jewish community and were not included in such activities as table fellowship. The Jewish Christians thought that circumcision for males was a must in order to become a Christian. They did agree to relax the dietary requirements, supposedly after Peter was told in a dream they were no longer applicable. But the notion that the Jewish Messiah was a crucified criminal was hardly a selling point to Jews or Gentiles. If things stayed as they were, Christianity would have probably remained a fringe sect of Judaism, or eventually an extinct one. Enter Paul.

 

While Paul is the one thought to be the author of 13 letters to various individuals and churches in the NT it is questioned whether he really did all of the writing. Besides that, had not Constantine had an upset victory over Maxentius and Licinius taking over the Roman Empire, Christianity may have died a slow and miserable death. It was Constantine who called together the Council Of Nicaea resulting in producing the Nicene Creed, the basis for Christianity.

 

Most scholars think he did write 7 of 13 (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), while three of the epistles in Paul's name are widely seen as pseudepigraphical (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). The other 3 (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians) are disputed.
What Books Did Paul Write in the Bible? (The Surprising Truth!)
Forgeries in the Name of Paul | The Bart Ehrman Blog
Disputed and undisputed letters of Paul
The Pauline Epistles: Known and Suspected Forgeries.
Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia
There is also another letter, unauthored, once misattributed to Paul, (Hebrews), which is not one of the 13. The author is unknown.
A. C. Mitchell, Hebrews (Liturgical Press, 2007) page 6;
Letter to the Hebrews | Summary, Authorship, & Facts | Britannica
https://www.logos.com/grow/who-wrote-hebrews/
The six that are disputed or thought to be pseudopigraphical were all written in Paul's name--indicating that he was regarded as an authority to emulate!

 

Excellent references about the validity of the writings of Paul. But again, had it not been for Constantine Christianity might not exist today. If it did survive through the centuries it would be a very small sect.

 

Imho, this is a fact and the sooner Christians realize this the better. They can transform it back into the original version or near to it with their own intelligent and intuitive efforts. After all, Christ claimed that the kingdom of God is within all Christians as it is in himself, so whatever they need to know is within themselves.

If you look at the historical context and narrative, it is easy to find out why it happened.

Jesus died young due to the crucifixion and he only had a couple of illiterate fishermen as the nuclei to spread his teachings. Like Chinese whispers it is possible that much of the coherence of the content reduced as it was spread .

Secondly the persecution of the roman empire for centuries also played a part in wiping out intellectual leaders and theologians of the movement such as Origen.

When the romans finally accepted christianity, they compiled the biblical scriptures in the councils of Constantinople and Nicea and editted them as per roman sensibilities. All other versions that varied with the roman version was considered heretical and ruthlessly wiped out. This ensured that Christian sects like the Cathars and Bogomils having belief in reincarnation and other beliefs became extinct. Same too with the Paulicians.

The martyred Origen's belief in the pre-existence of souls and possibly reincarnation was also rejected by the roman church even though he was described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".

Giordano Bruno, noted for his alternate beliefs as well as belief in reincarnation, was similarly condemned to death for his beliefs by the Church in 1600.

 

Before getting further into the memes, some further background on Paul is in order. Paul was first person to write about Christianity was Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus). For some historians, this means he might as well have invented the movement, since records from the earlier Jerusalem church are scant and come mainly from Paul and Christian herisiologists. Paul was an enigmatic figure who seemed to come out of nowhere circa 37 Tarsus C.E.. when he reportedly made first contact with the Jerusalem church, three years after his conversion to Christianity. He appears to have been a Hellenized Diaspora Jew, fluent in Greek, and familiar with Greek philosophy. He was also a Roman citizen by birth, apparently because his father was in the good graces of Rome. According to Acts of the Apostles, he was born in Tarsus in the kingdom of Cilicia, where he spent the first ten years of his life before being shipped off to Jerusalem for religious training. Before his conversion to Christianity, by his own account, he was a Pharisee who persecuted Christians. In fact, by his own account, he was an observer and cloak check guy during the stoning of Saint Stephen, Christianity's first martyr. Later, according to Acts of the Apostles, he led an expedition to Damascus to round up Christians there, and on the way had a vision from Jesus that led to his conversion. Then, three years later, he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with James, "the brother of the Lord", and with Cephas (Peter). After that, he began his missionary work in his place of birth, Tarsus and surrounding areas, in 40-44 C.E.

Let's pause for some analysis. Paul admits he never knew Jesus during the latter's lifetime on earth, but met Him in a vision, which Paul considered good enough to make him an apostle like the twelve who knew Him in the flesh. He also tells us in 2 Corinthians 12: 2-4): “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.” Although he writes in the third person, most people assume the man in question was Paul himself. What are we to make of this? Back then, and among believers today, people took him at this word, and were convinced he had a pipeline to Jesus. Modern secular scholars, of course, have other explanations. Some suggest temporal lobe epilepsy--a standard diagnosis for ecstatic experiences associated with seizures and sudden religious conversions.
St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy.
Faith, neuroscience, and “the thorn” in Paul’s side: Abrahamic interpretations of epilepsy - Hektoen International
Bjorn Asheim Hansen and Eylert Brodtkorb, “Partial Epilepsy with ‘ecstatic’ seizures,” Epilepsy & Behavior 4, no. 6 (2003): 667.
Orrin Devinsky, “Religious Experiences and Epilepsy,” Epilepsy & Behavior 12, no. 4 (2008): 76.
Kenneth Dewhurst and A.W. Beard, “Sudden Religious Conversions in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 117, no. 540 (1970): 497.
Paul complains about his "thorn in the flesh", and this is one of the explanations scholars have given for that unidentified malady.

As one who also had a dramatic conversion to Christianity after a an unexpected encounter with what seemed like a message from beyond, let me venture a somewhat less clinical explanation. I was wrestling with a challenging decision when a biblical passage (Gen.1:27) triggered an avalanche of cascading thoughts that made me a "born again" Christian. If I were describing this at the time, I might well have said: "God spoke to me." If I had been living in Paul's time, that might have been my final verdict, although today I'd allow for more psychologically sophisticated explanations like--temporal lobe epilepsy or a triggering of stored information in my unconscious mind. In my case, there were no actual "voices" or "visions"--only intense, compelling thoughts. Never had anything I'd identify as a "seizure", and the ecstatic stuff is pretty cool.

As for the trip to the "third heaven", I've never had that one. Some scholars think Paul might have been one of the earliest practitioners of a form of Jewish mysticism known as Merkabah or Hekhalot mysticism, characterized by similar trips to the great beond. Paul may have been in contact with an early group that was practicing this.
St. Paul the Mystic - The Whole Counsel Blog.
Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate* Part 1: The Jewish Sources | Harvard Theological Review | Cambridge Core
I suspect that some readers on these forums might be aware of similar "trips" and ways in which they might be achieved. Anyhow, we simply don't know what the source of Paul's trip might have been.

The Tarsus connection is interesting as the center of the mystery religion Mithraism which the Romans carried back home after invading Cilicia to suppress the pirates who were active there.https://www.worldhistory.org/Tarsus/The Cilician version conflated the Persian god Mithra and the Greek god Perseus to produce a version of Mithraism featuring the slaying of a bull--as Perseus slew the Minataur. David Ulansey (1991). The Perseus cult of Tarsus. During the early decades of the twentieth century, when Frazer's theory of dying and rising gods was still in vogue, it was widely assumed that Paul borrowed from Mithraism. In the 1960s, this view was generally rejected, thanks to A.Z Smith's careful repudiation of Frazer's thesis and Justo Gonzales observation in A History of Christian Thought, (1970),Volume I, that Mithraism didn't reach Rome until after Paul's death. But Paul was exposed to the religion before that in Tarsus. Other mystery religions, as well, were the rage in Tarsus, and its possible that elements of these influenced Paul's understanding of Jesus.

Anyhow, Paul's take on Jesus transformed the religion profoundly. TBC

 

Weed as in Marijuana. Get enough in your head and hallucinations happen.

 

John Marco Allegro, a British archaeologist and Dead Sea scrolls expert caused a stir and cost him his academic position for suggesting in The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) that visionary plants, specifically amanita muscaria, were majorly involved in early Christian visions.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/06/...otted-fungus-the-sacred-mushroom-and-the.html

 

The way I read the article wasn't that the mushroom affected writings of the New Testament. But I will say that John writing the Book of Revelation must have been on something.

 

(2) a predominantly Gentile movement about Jesus' death and resurrection, after 70 C.E. Paul introduced the following 8 or 10 memes that transformed Christianity:

• vicarious atonement: Jesus as sacrificial lamb who died for our sins.
• acceptance of the sacrifice as necessary for salvation
• justification by faith instead of works: circumcision not required for Gentiles
• Jesus' resurrection as the "first fruit" of resurrection for all the saved.
• removal of social barriers between Jews and Gentiles
• tolerance of sex in marriage (preference for celibacy)
• expanded homophobia
• misogyny?
• submission to civil authorities as divinely appointed
• Jesus as a supernatural being?

These memes were introduced in the 50s, but encountered fierce resistance from Jewish Christians. I chose 70 C.E. as the transition date, since that marks the destruction of the Temple and the demise of the Jerusalem Church as the power center of Christianity. According to Dawkins, memes, like genes, follow the principle of "survival of the fittest"--or at least the fit. Paul's innovations had an appeal that previous views of Jesus didn't by addressing unconscious needs and anxieties.

--vicarious atonement. As a Pharisee, Paul had been put off from Christianity by the notion that a crucified criminal could be the Jewish Messiah, especially since Deuteronomy 21:23 indicated that such a person would be cursed. But after his conversion he came to the insight that Jesus, by His death, freed us from the curse. (Gal. 3:13). He uses the metaphor of the Paschal lamb, sacrificed on Passover (1 Cor. 5-7). Not all Christians accept this idea even today. Luke, the author of both the gospel named for him and Acts, may have hag an alternative view that Jesus' death shocked the conscience of people into realizing the injustice of crucifying such an outstanding and innocent individual.
Hans Conzelmann(1960) The Theology of St. Luke,
Does Luke Have Contradictory Views of the Atonement? | The Bart Ehrman Blog
If Jesus' Death Was Not an Atonement: Why Did He Die?? | The Bart Ehrman Blog
Conclusion on the Atonement in Luke-Acts | Bible.org
Atonement? Why Jesus Died According to Luke’s Gospel | The Thinking Faith Project's Blog Article By Rev. Prince Odoemena
The Atonement in Lucan Theology in Recent Discussion | Bible.org But Paul's version caught on and became dominant.

--acceptance of the sacrifice as essential for salvation. In Romans 10:4, Paul explains that the failure of the Jews to believe in and accept Christ's sacrifice was the source of their estrangement from God. This was the beginning of a new emphasis in Christianity on belief instead of conduct as critical to salvation.

--justification by faith instead of works:circumcision not required for Gentiles. Galatians 2:16. “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” This was a radical departure from the Jerusalem church's teaching that works of the Law were central to salvation.

--Jesus' resurrection as "first fruits": Another big draw was Paul's teaching that Jesus' resurrection meant the subsequent resurrections of all "saved" believers. Paul taught that Jesus'
resurrection was the precursor for the resurrection of others. He was the first to discuss the nature of resurrection: that it wouldn't be the same body, but a new and improved "spiritual body" (whatever that is) that would be resurrected.

--removal of social barriers between Jews and Gentiles. One of Paul's proudest achievements was his effort to ease barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and to make clear that Jews and Gentiles were one co-equal people of God. Galatians, Romans, and one of the disputed letters,Ephesians. Early on, he clashed with Peter, James and the Jerusalem church over the issue of table fellowship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. In Galatians 2:12-16, Paul tells us that Peter used to eat with uncircumcised Gentile believers until "men who came from James" (i.e., Jewish Christians) arrived to check up on him. After they arrived, Peter "began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group", and even Barnabus, Paul's missionary companion, caved. Paul upbraided Peter for this "hypocrisy", since such concern over circumcision status reflected an attachment to works instead of faith. In Romans 10:12-18, Paul tells us "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

--toleration of sex in marriage; preference for celibacy. Early Christians thought the world would end in their own lifetimes, and that an ascetic, celibate lifestyle was one most acceptable to God. Paul clarified this position. He thought it was better to remain celibate, but folks already married should stay married, and those who weren't able to control their passion should marry rather than burn with lust. 1 Cor. 7: 8-10. This position, while not particularly advantageous from an evolutionary point of view, at least allows relationships in which reproduction was acceptable.

--expanded homophobia. Early Christians inherited the Old Testament view that male homosexuality was an abomination to God (Leviticus, 20:13). But it said nothing about female homosexuality. Jesus expressed no known opinions at all on the subject of homosexuals, although He strongly condemned divorce. Paul took care of that by broadening the taboo on homosexuality to include women. Romans 1: 26-27. It is of enormous importance to Christians that homosexuality seems to be condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. (Of pagans, he tells us, "(e)ven their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. " Note the emphasis on natural. Paul shows his knowledge of Greco-Roman philosophy by drawing on the ethical theory of Natural Law, popular among Stoic thinkers. Besides the Bible, say these philosophers we can draw moral insight from observing Nature. Same sex relations produce no offspring.
Successful memes require offspring.



TBC

 

Yes, I think that christianity in a broad sense has deviated from the way.

How did it happen?

Well as you know, satan is in rebellion against God. he corrupted most if not all of the angels that were under him, if you think of the hierarchy of angels as being led by three generals each with their own troops. so all of these fallen angels are fighting to ascend, but they are also fighting for their lives, since God has said that He will destroy them. so the fallen angels have an interest in corrupting the spreading and interpretation of the gospel, and deceiving humans to make them stray from the way. often in the places and times where christians are at their strongest, they will also encounter the most powerful demons(Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days). that's why paul mentioned that we should wear the "whole armor of God." (ephesians 6:10-20). it is a battle and the forces of darkness want to deceive us and make us stray from the way.

i'm not completely familiar with the whole history of christianity and exactly what happened when, but on a spiritual level, that is what has been happening for the last 2000 years.

so the remedy is through movements like the reformation that seek to restore the life of the gospel. but even after that it's still a battle to stay on the way.

 

I think it's more likely that the "True Believers, confronted with problems in the story line, used their imaginations to fill in the gaps--as you have done. Can you tell me the sources in scripture for the notion that Satan "corrupted most if not all of the angels that were under him, if you think of the hierarchy of angels as being led by three generals each with their own troops. so all of these fallen angels are fighting to ascend, but they are also fighting for their lives, since God has said that He will destroy them. so the fallen angels have an interest in corrupting the spreading and interpretation of the gospel, and deceiving humans to make them stray from the way." Quite a lot of interpolation going on there!

 

Isaiah 14:12-15
[12]“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
[13]For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
[14]I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
[15]Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.

Matthew 25:41
[41]“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 12:3-4,7-9
[3]And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads.
[4]His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.
[7]And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
[8]but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
[9]So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

1 Peter 5:8
[8]Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

2 Corinthians 11:3
[3]But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Ephesians 6:12
[12]For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

 

Interesting quotations. They nicely illustrate the process of mimetic cultural evolution at work. But we need to take them in chronological order, and in context. The first, as you indicate, is Isaiah 14:12-15. What is missing is the context--i.e, some earlier verses you omitted, namely 4:3-11, which make it clear it is hyperbolic metaphor about the King of Babylon. Isaiah 14 is a passage of hope to the Jews in Babylonian bondage, and a promise of liberation. 14:3 explains:" On the day that the LORD gives you rest from your pain and torment, and from the hard labor into which you were forced, 4you will sing this song of contempt against the king of Babylon". The rest is about him (i.e., the Babylonian king! A man, not a devil! No mention of a war in heaven, an angelic hierarchy, etc. "Lucifer" in Latin means light bringer or the morning star. The Hebrew is hêlēl ( הֵילֵל ), or "Shining One".Strong's #1966 - הֵילֵל - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org The king is called Hêlêl ben Šāḥar הילל בן שחר : Shining One, Son of the morning. There is a similar metaphorical passage, Ezekiel 28:11-19, concerning the King of Tyre, who also falls from the pinnacle of power. Both became merged in the minds of later extrapolaters.

Note: neither of these passages mentions Satan שָׂטָן , who appears as an angel--except as an agent rather than an enemy of God. And Satan wasn't originally his personal name, but rather his job title: the Adversary or Accusor--in other words, God's Chief Prosecutor. Satan in the Bible, God’s Minister of Justice All of the early references to him in the Old Testament refer to him by the indefinite article ha-Satan (the Satan). He carries out various assignments for God--e.g., preventing Balaam from cursing Israel (Num.21: 22-32) and testing the patience of Job (Job 1: 6-22). In fact, it wasn't really until the inter-testimentary period, from the completion of Malachi (400 BCE) to the first writings of Paul (c.50-55 C.E.) that the notion of Satan as the enemy of God and the prince of fallen angels (demons) gained currency. What was going on then? Judaism was in its Second Temple phase, as a self-governing theocracy as part of the Persian empire until 332 c.e., when it was exposed to Zoroastrian ideas--the struggle between the Forces of Light, led by Ahura Mazda, his lieutenant Mithra (prototype for Michael, the Archangel?) and the ahuras (good angels), and the Forces of Darkness, led by Ahriman or Angra-manya and the devas ( bad angels). For evidence of the impact of this religion on the Essenes, the Jewish sect thought to be authors or custodians of the Dead Sea Scrolls, see the War Scroll.War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness - Wikipedia

This scroll was written c. 150 C.E, after rule of Israel passed successively to the Hellenistic Ptolemaic empire, the Seleucid Empire and, after a relatively brief interlude of restored self-government under the controversial Hashmoneans, to Rome. This was a traumatic time for Jews who weren't part of the Hellenized elite of collaborators. The theory developed that God had temporarily turned over control of the world to the forces of darkness, but would eventually defeat them. It was during this period that apocalyptic writings to explain what seemed to be a non-fulfillment of the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel that after the Babylonian captivity Israel would enjoy a bright future. Notable examples of this pre-Christian Jewish literature are: the Book of Daniel, purported to be written during the Babylonian exile but probably written c.c. 165 b .c. e., during the Seleucid occupation; the (non-canonical) Book of Enoch, c. 170 b. c .e., Second Book of Enoch (date unknown); and the Book of Jubilees, c. 150 B.c.E., describing the activities of the Watchers", or rebellious fallen angels. The thinking was that God, for mysterious reasons, had delivered the world temporarily to the rule of Satan and his minions, but that the Messiah or the Son of Man would come to usher in the kingdom of God on Earth. In light of this new thinking, these thinkers reconsidered the scriptures and "discovered" connections they hadn't seen before. They read into Isaiah 14:12-15 as you have done, making inferences about Lucifer and fallen angels that aren't there in black and white, making a connection between that and Satan, and throwing in the snake in the Garden of Eden, who was never before connected to Satan but certainly was a tempter leading humanity astray.
Satan
Is Satan in the Old Testament?
Who Is Satan?
The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament - Dr. Michael Heiser

In light of the foregoing, let's look at the rest of your proof texts. Certainly Jesus and/or His followers believed in Satan as the Prince of Darkness, as your New Testament sources suggest. But you've filled in some details that I find missing in all of them: Satan "corrupted most if not all of the angels that were under him, if you think of the hierarchy of angels as being led by three generals each with their own troops. so all of these fallen angels are fighting to ascend, but they are also fighting for their lives, since God has said that He will destroy them." And as I've indicated, these Christian sources might be products of interpolation, to explain unfortunate exigencies of history, as I tend to believe. Or they might all be products of belated divine revelation, as you appear to suggest. Anyhow, thanks for continuing the tradition of mimetic evolution.