Sheshbazzar

Not sure of just which of my various ideas or 'Flawed reasoning' it is in this thread that you are objecting to?
Was it my statement that;
?

or this?
or this?
These are the total of my contributions regarding the topic presented in the OP.
You have not addressed a single statement that I made within these posts.

It was my own reading of the Clementine writings that convinced me that they had been extensively tampered with, and further, that the NT ideas presented by Clement were actually the genesis of the NT texts and not the other way around. Clement's ideas, reasonings, and writings were 'cleaned up' polished and adapted to create various NT texts.
With the church latter inserting the apparent Clementine 'quotations' from the NT and the apparent Clementine 'mentions' of the 'apostles' into his texts.

I did not derive this conviction of the bogus quality of the Clementine Epistles from Stephan Huller or from anyone else.
In my view, it is not a question of whether 1 Corinthians 14, 15, and 16 are Fakes, as I am convinced -by the content- of The Clementine Epistles, that the entire Book of 1 Corinthians, and ALL the other books comprising the so-called 'New Testament' are ALL church fabricated Fakes.

The Church was in the process of fabricating the NT writings, Clement's works were adapted and employed as the major source for their content, while Clement's actual writings were altered and expanded to 'fit'.

Thus my question to you aa5874 Is it your position that the Clementine Epistles are pristine and untampered with, and can be trusted to read exactly as they came from Clement's own hand, free from any latter additions or alterations?
And The Clementine Writings are an absolutely trustworthy source documents to be taken at face value in whatever claims they make?

I wish to see you defend the absolute integrity of the Clementine Writings.
If you cannot, then you have no valid base on which to make claim that my reasoning regarding them, or 1 Corinthians is flawed.




.

aa5874

These questions have ZERO to do with me. I have not made any claims that the writings of Clement are free from alterations and are in pristine condition.

I only showed what I found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and they do NOT reflect that 1 Cor. 14, 15 and 16 are Fakes.

1. Stephan has utterly failed to show that Clement of Alexander did attribute passages found in 1 Cor. 14. 15 and 16 to another author.

2. Stephan has utterly failed to show that Clement of Alexander did attribute passages found in 1 Cor 14,15 and 16 to some other epistle of Paul.

3. Stephan has utterly failed to show that there are epistles without 1 Cor. 14, 15, and 16.

That is my position so far.

I am dealing with the OP which is titled "1 Corinthians Chapters 14, 15, and 16 are Fakes".

Sheshbazzar

As I recall, you accuse me of employing 'Flawed reasoning'
I reposted every pertinent post I had made in this thread.
The questions tendered have to do with you being able to support your allegation that I have employed 'Flawed reasoning'.

Please point out -specifically- what it is, that you are objecting as being 'Flawed reasoning'.

If you cannot do so, your claim must be false or in error.

aa5874

I REJECT your FlAWED reasoning in your posts #140, #147 and #149.

Sheshbazzar

Well then lets look again at their content.Can you provide us with any post or thread where you have openly accepted and endorsed an idea or an opinion that was presented by someone other than yourself?

With 12000+ posts for you to draw upon, and your evidently incredible recall, it should present no problem for you to be able to easily provide hundreds,
-well at least dozens- of examples of where you have stepped up and endorsed and supported a statement, or a point that was first raised by some fellow Forum member.


Thus far you have not demonstrated that in this observation, my reasoning is Flawed.

.

tanya

Correct, in my opinion, and it corresponds to the manuscript evidence, demonstrating both source mutilation, and redaction.
And I support this conclusion, without qualification. Thank you aa5874.

The entire corpus attributed to "Paul" could well be fake, but I don't think that the failure to identify a quote from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, proves anything, with respect to the original text of the epistles attributed to "Paul", whatever that may have been.

Well written. Superb. Brilliant. An interesting hypothesis.