Luke 24:20 proves that Pilate appeared in the original gospel

[Giuseppe]

Luke 24:20 :

ὅπως τε παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες ἡμῶν εἰς κρίμα θανάτου καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν

1 Cor 2:8:

ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν· εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν·

"Luke" (author) would have known surely that the "archons" mentioned by Paul were demons, but even so he writes, without problems: "high priests and archons", meaning human archons, i.e. the Romans of Pilate.

This is not a mere coincidence. This is a deliberate transposition of the (meaning of) "archons" from heaven to earth.

It is impossible that this transposition was made in a late time: what interest could "Luke" have to mention directly the human "Archons" as responsibles of the death of Jesus on an equal level with the hated sinedrites, without no a clue of pro-roman apology in this case.

Hence I found the my case on this passage: Pilate appeared in the Earliest Gospel.

[Joseph D. L.]

Pilate can NOT have been in the original Gospel as he is a Pauline-type figure, a stand in either for Paul or Marcion, in the adaptationist/Hebrew Gospel.

You've confused correlation with causation. As per usual.

[Giuseppe]

Pilate can NOT have been in the original Gospel as he is a Pauline-type figure, a stand in either for Paul or Marcion, in the adaptationist/Hebrew Gospel.

You've confused correlation with causation. As per usual.

the earliest gosel was docetist and gentilizer, not separationist and judaizer. The coincidence of having both "Archons" now in the role of demons and then in the role of Romans can't be a real coincidence, hence the Romans appeared from the first gospel. There was a deliberate attempt to mask the demonic killers with Roman killers.

Who wrote Luke 20:24 wanted to eclipse completely the demonic Archons. He hated all the Christians who had demons and not humans as archons.

[Joseph D. L.]

The earliest Gospel was neither doecetic or adoptionist. Terms such as "gentilizer" and "judaizer" are nonsense Giuseppe-isms.

The earliest Gospel (probably Secret Mark, though not known by that name) was strictly an allegory of Hadrian and Antinous into the mysteries in Alexandria.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is both docetic and adoptionist, meaning that such a dichotomy only came about in later traditions. The two were not mutually exclusive, and how a man can be both human and divine simultaneously.

Using Luke to further your argument is fruitless, as Luke appears right at the end of the second century, and I would argue it belongs to the reign of Severus. It comes well after the Pauline epistles, and thus could easily have incorporated any theological speculation into itself long after Pauline/Marcionite religion emerged.

[Giuseppe]

The earliest Gospel was neither doecetic or adoptionist. Terms such as "gentilizer" and "judaizer" are nonsense Giuseppe-isms.

here you reveal all the your idiocy.

The earliest Gospel (probably Secret Mark, though not known by that name) was strictly an allegory of Hadrian and Antinous into the mysteries in Alexandria.

go distant from me, here. Secret Mark is clearly a judaizing forgery designed to rehabilitate the young rich rejected by the Markan Jesus because he doesn't give up the his Jewish "richness" (=the Old Alliance etc).

The Gospel of the Hebrews

sorry but already the name betrayes the his judaizing origin.

Using Luke to further your argument is fruitless, as Luke appears right at the end of the second century,

but proto-Luke is the Gospel of Marcion therefore the your objection is vain.

[Joseph D. L.]

God you're an idiot.

The earliest Gospel/Actus Christus was clearly an allegory, and so can change its idea of Christ accordingly. Like John. Is it docetic? No, because Christ is portrayed as being flesh. Is it adaptionist? No, because Christ is divine by nature. So what is it?

Secret Mark is the earliest Gospel text that we can pin that bridges the gulf between Mark and John , and we have a likely suspect who authored it (Markianos), and motivation, (death of Antinous).

It doesn't matter anyway, because Marcion as a text didn't come about until ca 160-170 ad, after he had died.

Luke is Marcion, but Marcion is also a truncated text. It's not the original either. So you're model is circular and baseless.

[MrMacSon]

... Marcion as a text didn't come about until ca 160-170 ad, after he had died.

After Marcion had died?

Do you have an idea why would it have been attributed to Marcion?

[Giuseppe]

God you're an idiot.

The earliest Gospel/Actus Christus was clearly an allegory, and so can change its idea of Christ accordingly. Like John.

I can agree very much with this "like John" (for the precise reason exposed by me here).

My minimalism in conclusions prevents me from following the rest of the your ideas (about Secret Mark I am extremely skeptical, as in general about anything coming from Secret Alias's harmonization of the Marcionite tradition with a Jewish origin).

[Joseph D. L.]

After Marcion had died?

Do you have an idea why would it have been attributed to Marcion?

To clarify my position, I think the historical Marcion did have a Gospel-like text, be it a proto-John, or something closer to Secret Mark. Why I dispute Gospel of the Lord being his text is due to the opposing natures of the Evangelion and the Apostlikon, and the later I believe was definitely his own work.

Marcion had many followers, but even he (by which I mean, Paul) notes that some of those followers had abandoned him. Apollos comes to mind, and Demas is said in the Pastorals to have deserted him. So the culprit would have used his teacher's text to suit his own ends. But either due to confusion or bad records, it became attributed to Marcion.

It may also be that Gospel of the Lord is about Marcion himself, and his follower was trying to glorify his teacher, just as Damis (Demas?) did with Apollonius. (I have a big write up on this, but it's for later).

Some people on this forum, especially Giuseppe, treat Marcion like he's some great key to everything, when in actuality we know very little about him and most of the stuff sounds made up.

[Giuseppe]

Some people on this forum, especially Giuseppe, treat Marcion like he's some great key to everything, when in actuality we know very little about him and most of the stuff sounds made up.

not precisely Marcion but the his precursors (Saturnilos and Cerdon). I would like that you read this article, especially the last 3-4 pages, to know why I am so galvanized by "Marcion":

https://vridar.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... r_engl.pdf