Aug 16, 1996 05:06 AM
>As I understand it, your argument is this: You say that Luke was
>a disciple of Paul, who was orthodox, therefore Luke had "good
>relations with orthodoxy"; that Luke "wrote the Gospel" [of
>Luke]; Luke talks about Pilate; therefore Jesus lived under
>Pilate. Your logic would be solid if Paul had written the
>Epistles and Luke the Gospel of Luke, or at least that the
>Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke represent the ideas of
>their respective name sakes. But here lies the great flaw:
No. I think that Luke composed the gospel collecting some pieces of
information found in the oral and written tradition. I include Luke as
orthodox because he is cited by others orthodox such as Iraenaus and
Eusebius. They would never cited a person that had relations with heretics
(groups that did not follow the ortodoxy, the vitorious sect of christians
at century IV).
>Early in this discussion, I mentioned that only two of the
>fourteen epistles of Paul are generally accepted to be genuine.
You cited before that Paul had written four epistles. At that time I mention
two references about Elaine Pagels ("Adam,Eve and the serpent",1988 I,52)and
Daniel Rops (LEglise des apostres et des Martyrs,Paris,1948 II,68) states
that scholars recognice that Paul wrote seven epistles: Romans,I and II
Corinthians, Galatians, Filipenses, I Tessalonics and Filemon. You (without
mention any reference) agreed that at least four are genuine and wrote:
Your earlier posting was:
>Of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, only the letter to the
>Romans, the two to the Corinthians and the one to the Galatians
>are universally accepted as genuine by modern Biblical scholars.
Now you reduces the number to two. I will repeat the question is not the
authenticity, to our discussion (that Jesus did not live one century before
as stated in Toldoth). These epistles reflects the doctrines of Paul, as
the early church, and were considered so by many others such as Marcion,
paulicians and cathars that accepted pauline epistles and an adultered
version fo gospel of Luke. Luke refers to Jesus living under Pilate, and
never one century before as stated in Toldoth.
Jerry wrote that 1Tm was written most probably in the second century, too
late to be contemporary with the accepted dates of the Biblical Jesus.
Jerry recognices that the epistle is not a forgery, but wrote by someone
"under inspiration gained from knowing Paul". But I disagree with you, that
1Tm6:18 have no historical significance. Your mention of Pilate and Baptism,
don't modify this historical value. If Jesus had lived one century before,
this passage referrring to a baptism at this date, would use the name of
another person than Pilate.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application