Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 03-26-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Maybe not forged, but simply adjusted.

Possible. It could be something as simple as arrogance, too. They didn't care what else was out there....they created their story and were sticking to it. (And anyone who disputed them got a visit from the Thought Police.)

Julio · 03-26-2009, 11:25 AM

It is ascertained that the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of this Clement of Rome, although the Letter itself [One Clement] doesn’t mention its author’s name. Is this correct?

Toto · 03-26-2009, 12:40 PM

1 Clement

Quote:

Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century.

The text does not identify the sender, but even if it did?

Quote:

The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

Shepherd of Hermas

Quote:

...the Clement of 8:3 could be Clement of Rome...

Quote:

4[8]:2 And afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The aged woman came, and asked me, if I had already given the book to the elders. I said that I had not given it. "Thou hast done well," she said, "for I have words to add. When then I shall have finished all the words, it shall be made known by thy means to all the elect.

4[8]:3 Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church.

You can see for yourself how utterly convincing all of this documentation is.

aa5874 · 03-26-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

I think the 4th century church needed a ghost like Clement.

I tend to agree, aa, but one thing bothers me. If 'Clement' were forged in the 4th century, why wouldn't they have had him cite the writings which they had recently decided were "holy?"

If you are going to forge something, why not make it say everything you need it to say ( a la the Testimonium Flavianum) rather than something which undercuts your basic message ( as with, Pliny's letter to Trajan?)

I think that the letters of Clement are planted evidence to create a distorted history of Jesus believers.

I do not have all the evidence yet, but this is how I am thinking right now.

The letters of Paul, Acts of the Apostles, Ignatius, Clement, the writings of Irenaeus, some writings of Tertullian, including Against Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, or any letter or writing that contain the words "Paul", bishop, deacon, talking in tongues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Peter in Rome, the death of Peter or Paul, or catholic, just to name a few words, are all written later than their present assumed date of writing.

The Roman Church, it would appear to me, must have fabricated some parts of their history. I think the Roman Church fabricated all writings with the name Paul and any writings that refer to epistles of Paul, including Clement of Rome.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2009, 11:25 AM	#12
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	It is ascertained that the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of this Clement of Rome, although the Letter itself [One Clement] doesn’t mention its author’s name. Is this correct?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.