Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00188)

Jerry wrote
>Yes, and you also showed that Dr. Lardner detailed the differences between
>Marcion's Luke and the Church's Luke. Therefore Dr. Lardner is also saying
>that Marcion accepted only his copy of Luke, not the Church's...
>Even if Marcion's gospel of Luke is an adulterated version (as argued by
>Tertullian) of the one used by the Church, the fact remains that Marcion's
>understanding of the historicity of Jesus is vastly different from that
>held by the Church.

It's clear to me that Marcion, have a different edition of gospel of Luke.
It's clear also that Marcion didn't accept the Jesus in the flesh.
Blavastsky is correct here.

So you recognices that Marcion accepted some parts from from Luke's gospel
(used by the church) as authentical. And as Dr. Lardner explains, such parts
INCLUDE chapters 23 and chapter 3:1 that CLEARLY refers to Pilate. So, even
thought Marcion rejects Jesus in flesh, and had opinions vastly different
from that held by the church, Marcion accepts that Jesus lived under Pilate,
and then rejects Toldoth at THIS POINT. Do you agree?

>I'm having a lot a problems with your logic and the conclusions you are
>deriving from the above string of information.  How does your conclusion
>that Luke "is an orthodox" address HPB's argument that the historical
>Jesus lived in 100 B.C.?   Are you implying that Luke had some special
>knowledge of Jesus, or that he belonged to a Syrian group that had special
>knowledge of Jesus? Further, are you implying that the Gospel of Luke was
>written by the apostle Luke, and/or represents the apostle Luke's ideas?
>I hope you don't hold this belief.

I cited quotation from Eusebius, Iraenaeus, and a prologue found at church
of Rome 180AD (remember that as in a previus e-mail  we already conclude
that gnostics description given by Iraenaeus are in accordance with the recent
discoveries in Nag-Hammadi). All these references comes from ortodoxy, so I
conclude that Luke had good relations with ortodoxy. All this references states
that Luke was disciple of Paul and wrote the gospel. And as Luke chapter 23
talk about Pilate, these references can be used to confirm the hypothese that
Jesus lived under Pilate.

If Luke had some special knowledge about Jesus, it is not clear at this
passages. Nor it is my original intention to follow this path, now. I am ONLY
trying to show that TODAY the references show that Jesus lived under Pilate,
and Toldoth was wrong at this point. Even heretics (those people rejected by
the ortodoxy) refers to Jesus living under Pilate, such as marcionites and paulicians
what I already showed (because they accepted Luke chapter 23 and chapter 3:1).

The question of NT's authenticity is not the point here. What we have
to understand is that the gospels and pauline epistles follow the original
doctrines of the majority party of the church (ortodoxy), and follows the
original belief that Jesus lived under Pilate. They are not forgeries or
something else (even though there is some interpolations as 1 John 5:7
cited by HPB at BOOK III chapter IV,161 - start 153, end 185). Surely
others christians doctrines (such as gnosticism and docetism) were omitted
from gospels. If quotations about Pilate in gospels were interpolations it
would be interesting to investigate if there is some contradiction between
ancient greek manuscripts about such passages. A good work about it is
written by K.Alland, M.Black, C.M.Martini, Bruce Metzger - The greek new
Testament.

Church belief that evangelists wrote theirs gosples independently, using the
oral tradition and some manuscripts that comes from the early christians
communities (Catechism 126, Dei Verbum19) There are also others theories
about it. <In 1921 Robert Bulltmann published - History of the synoptic tradition -
an analysis of the traditional material used by the evangelists Matthew, Mark
and Luke and an attempt to throw its history in the tradition of the church prior
to their use of it> (Enc. Britannica Vol2,629) He shown that <the base stock of
the tradition consisted of numerous small, self-contained units (single sayings,
parables, debates, anecdotes and miracles stories) originally WITHOUT any
relation to each other and mostly withou any interest in dates, places or
historical circumstances. It was the gospel writers (or some earlier collectors)
who first joined these individual pieces together...Thus with regard to the
gospels it has to be considerated that their tradition was found and collected
from THE POINT OF VIEW O THE FAITH OF THE POST_EASTER CHURCH,
under the influence of its ideas and ways of thought> (Britannica Vol22,337).

>In my last posting to you,I suggested that our inquiry might be more fruitful if we were to
>look at the teachings of the Ophite sect and investigate the Syrian heresies.  According to
>my reading of HPB, she is suggesting that elements of the primitive Church and ties to the
>historical Jesus may be found here.

I am looking for such information. If I will have some success, I will write.
But I think that is interesting ALSO investigate about christians apostolic
fathers, that you already admitted that have a limited knowledge about them

>I assume that since HPB cited this, she also believes it to be so. I have
>not read Adv. Marcion, nor do I have the time to plow through such an
>extensive work at this time, so I have no opinion of my own, nor did I
>express one.

Have you already think that HPB, may be wrong in some points here?

Abrantes