aa5874

1 Clement is NOT from the late 2nd century.

1 Clement is an anonymous letter composed AFTER 400 CE or after Letter 53 by Augustine of Hippo, after the Apologetic writing called the Recognitions, after the Chronograph of 354 and after the writing of Optatus.

There was NO Dissension of any Church of the Jesus cult in the 1st century because the Jesus cult was not even started until the 2nd century and there were NO Pauline letters.

It is virtually impossible that 1 Clement was known and circulated since the 2nd century in the Roman Church, in the Roman Empire and in the hands of Tertullian, Augustine, Rufinus, Optatus, the author of the Chronograph 354 and still they argued that Clement was NOT Bishop of Rome c 95 CE buTat 66-80 CE.

May I remind everyone that the 1 Clement is anonymous and no manuscript of the letter has been found and dated.

There was NO Bishop of Rome of a Jesus cult called Clement.

The Clement letter was planted and is part of a massive forgery.

The Clement letter to a Church of Corinth is historically and chronologically bogus.

Bernard Muller

to Vorkosigan,
I read Parvus' piece, and it is the same argument: If there are orthodox tenets in a Christian text, they have to be against Marcion, and consequently the whole writing was composed after Marcion launched his "heresy".
What is your evidence that between 70 and 130, there were no "orthodox" Christians? Eusebius said that Papias knew of 1 John and 1 Peter. So orthodox texts existed then. Papias, Aristides and Quadratus were considered orthodox also.
And why "orthodox" gLuke, gMark & gMatthew would mention, through Jesus mouth, that not all contemporaries of Jesus will die before the Kingdom come, with a second coming?

Besides that argument, there is nothing else which would put '1 Clement' in the 2nd century. The whole piece is rather fluffy and unfocussed.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

And why would the author of the Epistula Apostolorum contradict gMark, gMatthew and gLuke??

Why would the author claim Jesus was the angel Gabriel and that the Second Coming is 120-150 years after Pentecost.

Why must stories that are obvious Myth Fables be historically accurate??

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke claimed Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by or was overshadowed some kind of Holy Ghost.

It must be obvious that the Jesus stories are not historical accounts.

It is clear that all events and characters associated with Jesus, the disciples and Paul were INVENTED like Clement of Rome and Clement letter.

How in the world could the Clement letter be known, documented and circulated in the Roman Churches since c 95 CE at the Great Dissension of Corinth and yet up to the 5th century at least FIVE authors had no knowledge of the letter??

The Clement letter was fabricated and is NOT really evidence for the Pauline writers.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Why would the author of gMark contradicts gLuke? (or vice-versa)
Why would the author of gLuke contradicts gMatthew? (or vice-versa)
Why would the author of gMark contradicts gMatthew? (or vice-versa)

What about the authors who knew and mentioned the letter, starting by Irenaeus?
And just because an author does not mention a Christian text, that does not mean he does not know about it.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

You seem unaware that contradictions are the fundamental clues that the accounts in gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke were invented.

Do you understand what a forgery is? Do you understand what an interpolation is? May I remind that it would appear that Josephus mentioned Jesus of the NT in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. simply because the passage is an interpolation.

It is precisely because there are internal and external contradictions of the very writings of Irenaeus that we can argue that the Clement letter was unknown up to 400 CE.

The Clement letter was supposed to CAST IN STONE the time of the bishopric of Clement at 95 CE but the complete reverse happened almost all the Orthodox writers placed Clement well outside 95 CE at least 25 years from the supposed Dissension of Corinth.

I am extremely happy that you made such a statement because it means that your own argument is flawed. You really don't know what any writer of antiquity knew. Your argument is based on presumptions without any actual dated evidence.

My argument is fundamentally based on the recovered dated manuscripts and compatible sources.

All NT manuscripts that have been dated are from the 2nd century or later which is exactly as I expected.

I expected the recovered date manuscripts to corroborate the writings of Justin Martyr who Exposed a Big Black Hole from the Ascension c 33 - 133 CE.

It most fascinating that Justin's writings are corroborated and not Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Justin's writings have been corroborated and attested.

Justin's writings represent the History of the Jesus cult up to around c 150 CE.

It was the Memoirs of the Apostles that were read in the Churches--Not the Pauline letters.

First Apology The mid 2nd century Churches did NOT use or need the Pauline letters.

All the Pauline letters were composed after 180 CE.

jakejonesiv

You'll dance around Hogan's barn from now own. Just get to your point.

stephan huller

my point is that a second century date for Christianity is possible at least theoretically. but it would mean that EVERYTHING we know about Christianity is complete bullshit. that would mean that Christianity has nothing to do with the implications of the loss of the Jewish sanctuary (or perhaps better yet - something completely different than what we have come to know about the Christian interest in the loss of the sanctuary). that's the issue for me. I think I know that Christianity was developed as a way of dealing with the loss of the sanctuary. If that goes, I don't know what to make of Christianity.

one can make a fairly good case for the context of the Christian rejection sacrifices (which comes up in a lot of early texts) - i.e. that you need a sanctuary to hold sacrifices. I don't see why these issues would be important in the second century.

stephan huller

Clabeaux and Schmid have demonstrated that Marcion's text was a representative form of an early (pre-140), widely current but largely uncontrolled recension of the Pauline corpus that is also reflected mainly by the Old Latin and the old Syriac traditions. As such many readings previously judged distinctively Marcionite can now be recognized as common variants. I don't understand how 'pre-140' can square with Christianity = 'bar Kochba revolt'? Assuming that this was a common text type pre-140 CE the religion itself can't be about an event that took place 135 - 138 CE.

aa5874

We do not know anything about Christianity from the 1st century.

In fact, Nothing at all have been recovered and dated to the 1st century for a Jesus cult.

No artrifacts, No writings, Nothing.

Every thing we know about 1st century Christianity is just bullshit--forgeries.

1.The TF.

2. The Paul/Seneca letters.

3. Anonymous letter attributed to Clement

A 2nd century origin for the Jesus story and cult is compatible with the recovered dated manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The writings of Justin show exactly that Christianity was in its early development stage c 150 CE.

We have many 2nd-3rd century writings which show the diversity of Chrustianity---Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and the recovered dated manuscripts.

Please, tell us what you know about 1st century Christianity if it is NOT bullshit.

stephan huller

But what's the difference between the situation with respect to Christianity and the black hole c. 70 - 140 CE and what we find in Judaism or Samaritanism in the period? That's the problem. If Christianity was a stand alone problem we might buy in this black hole as a sign that there was nothing there. But surely Judaism and Samaritanism existed in the period in question. We can turn this around and ask - why then no documents from this period?

Short answer - things were really fucked up for all these religions between 70 - 140 CE. Or better yet 140 for some reasons marks beginning of pushing the 'reset button' for all these traditions.