Author Topic: St. Paul, St. Luke, and Gnosticism  (Read 104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 786SalamKhan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Faith: Attracted to Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: Considering the Catholic Church
St. Paul, St. Luke, and Gnosticism
« on: July 28, 2016, 11:25:27 PM »
Here's another one to refute. Basically the claim that St. Paul was really a Gnostic, in part due to the heretic Valentinus tracing his episcopal lineage back to him. Also the claim that the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were really derived from the works of the heretic Marcion.

I may be no expert in Scripture, but I think I can see right through the second claim claim, for example:

This touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion (MARCION, 4, 30.), is spun out, by the author of Luke (LUKE, 7.37 and 38.), into more than three times the number, with no improvement in the story.
Source-http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm

That could easily mean that Marcion edited the text to simplify and make it sound better. One similar example occurs in Apocalypse 18:2, where scholars believe a later writer omitted 'unclean beast' from the text to avoid repetition.

Anyway, leave your thoughts and refutations.

Thanks in advance and God bless.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Ex-Amish ex Appalachia
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,701
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: St. Paul, St. Luke, and Gnosticism
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2016, 12:06:01 AM »
Why do you want to "refute" this site?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline RaphaCam

  • Prime Minister of Zimbabwe
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,474
  • Holy Prophet and God-seer Moses
    • Facebook - A Bíblia Ilustrada
  • Faith: Church of Poland
  • Jurisdiction: but my heart belongs to Rio de Janeiro
Re: St. Paul, St. Luke, and Gnosticism
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 01:41:56 AM »
On the contrary, the works of Marcion were derived from St. Luke. Also, we have many, many obvious non-Gnostics relating themselves to St. Paul, plus things from St. Paul's hands themselves. What else would you want to disprove his supposed Gnosticism? What Gnostic is in St. Luke's works?

Also, don't you think you may be paying too much attention to anti-Christian apologetics considering you're inquiring? I can relate to that from my own time of inquire, and believe me: it was anything but spiritually healthy. Go read something that edifies you, your angry doubts will eventually be suppressed by the acceptance of the truth of the Gospel. No apologetics can win over that.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 01:43:49 AM by RaphaCam »
Bendito seja o Reino do Pai, do Filho e do Espírito Santo!

Offline byhisgrace

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 995
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: St. Paul, St. Luke, and Gnosticism
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 02:00:01 PM »
Here's another one to refute. Basically the claim that St. Paul was really a Gnostic, in part due to the heretic Valentinus tracing his episcopal lineage back to him.
According to Fr. Clement of Alexandria, followers of Valentinus claimed that Valentinus was a disciple of Theudus, who was allegedly a disciple of Paul. There is no record of Theudus, other than this. Nor do we have any of Theudus's writings. A claim of succession based on some unknown disciple is hardly convincing.

That aside, it is worth bearing in mind that succession, in itself, is not proof of orthodoxy. Plenty of heretics had lines of succession that go back to the Apostles. 


Also the claim that the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were really derived from the works of the heretic Marcion.
Oral tradition was more highly valued in the 1st century than it is today, so two different writers recording similar stories is not proof that one plagiarized from the other. Even if Marcion was the first to record in writing the story of the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, that has no bearing on the authenticity of the story itself, nor does it have any bearing on the integrity of the author of Luke.


I may be no expert in Scripture, but I think I can see right through the second claim claim, for example:

This touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion (MARCION, 4, 30.), is spun out, by the author of Luke (LUKE, 7.37 and 38.), into more than three times the number, with no improvement in the story.
Source-http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/CW_2.htm

That could easily mean that Marcion edited the text to simplify and make it sound better. One similar example occurs in Apocalypse 18:2, where scholars believe a later writer omitted 'unclean beast' from the text to avoid repetition.
My thoughts similar. I think that much of these conjectures are based on unwarranted assumptions about the writer's inner thoughts and motives, including why they did or did not include something.


Anyway, leave your thoughts and refutations.

Thanks in advance and God bless.
Hope I can help. :)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 02:02:15 PM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us