Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00095)

Hi Jerry

Firstly I must to correct some data that I sent:

In one of my last e-mail, I said:
>Suposing that Linus received the bishopric of Rome in 69AD, HPB
>concludes that he could not receive this bishopric from Peter, because
>Eusebius and Irineaus mentions that this moment occurred around 64-68AD
>during the Nero`s persecution under the fire of Rome at 67AD.
>But here there is no contradiction. It`s perfectly possible that this
>difference of only two years, can be explained by some error in dates given
>by Eusebius or Iraenaeus.

The fire of Rome occurred at 64AD. Writes Gibbon: <in the tenth year of
reign of Nero (54AD-68AD) the capital of the empire was afflicted by a fire
which raged beyond the memory or example of former ages> I,XIV,212
(Tacitus -Annals XV:38-44-, Suetonium -Nero c.38-,Dion Cassius -1.lxii.c16-,
Orosius-vii,7-)

Commenting about the probability of 1 Peter 5:13 be a interpolation (as
suggested by Alan) I said:
>However it`s clear that this addition that you supposes is before century IV
but the correct phrase would be:
>However it`s clear that this addition that you supposes is AFTER century IV

Commenting about the role of Jesus among nazarenes I mentioned that:

>HPB opposses two heresies within the judaism:
>the old nazarenes (Peter is included here) and the new heresy:
>the christianity (Jesus is included here, HPB says that Jesus
>was a nazaren reformer).

>At BOOK III,chapter IV (153,185) page 163 HPB writes that
>Peter, the apostle of circumcision, preached the doctrines
>opposed to Paul, and describes 2Peter 2:18-31 as a example of
>such discord.  At chapter II(60,110) page 87 she states that
>Peter saw Paul as magician, a man polluted with the gnosis, the
>wisdom of greek mysteries. Again she opposes Paul and Peter.

HPB says that basilides preached the correct doctrine, the same taught
by Jesus and in greek mysteries. HPB seems to say that Basilides preaches
the same doctrines of Peter because she mentions Basilides as a follower of
apostle Matthew and Peter. At the same time she refers as Jesus and Peter
in two opposite sides. HPB seems to prove that Peter did not follow the
teachings of Jesus, and can not be considered the successor of Jesus, as
told by ortodoxy, that believe that Jesus gave him the <keys> to construct
his church MT 16:17-19. There is a contradiction here, do you agree?

Jerry wrote:
>Are you trying to make a case that Basilides believed in the Biblical
>Jesus?  OK, for the sake of argument, what if he did?  How does that
>make the Biblical Jesus any more authentic?

My intention is discuss this question in a more broader view. When
discussing about the historicity of Jesus, it is also my intention to
understand the role of Jesus, Peter, nazarenes, and syrian heresies
at early times. The subject <historicity> sometimes functions like a
background to such discussion.

Basilides referred to Simon, aiding Jesus to bore the cross in his
martiry. And Simeon is not mentioned in Toldoth, but in gospels. This
is not enough to make biblical Jesus any more authentical, sure. But this
description of Basilides did not oppposes to the historicity as told by
gospels about crucifixion of Jesus. If Basilides was conscious about the
story told by Toldoth, he would not mention such passage.

http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers  file ECF01.TXT
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES,BOOK I,chapter XXIV
<he (Jesus) did not himself suffer death, but SIMON, a certain man of
Cyrene, being compelled, bore the CROSS in his stead; so that this latter
being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was
CRUCIFIED>

Abrantes