stephan huller

aa,

Please stop posting your pointless comments in my thread. I just happened to be going through another section of another letter in the Apostolikon (I am working on a major paper for a journal on this very subject). These comments are not directed at you but rather as a means of continuing the discussion:

FACT 1 - There are 58 lines of text in 1 Corinthians chapter 15
FACT 2 - There are only 4 references in the Biblindex for citations of 1 Cor 15 by Clement of Alexandria (I would dispute one of those citations but let's let it stand for now)

FACT 3 - There are 30 lines of text in Ephesians chapter 4
FACT 4 - There are almost 50 references in the Biblindex for citations of Ephesians 4 by Clement of Alexandria.

They include:

Now clearly EVEN IF 1 Corinthians 15 had anywhere near the same theological significance as one another it would be strange that while 1 Corinthians 15 has twice the text but Ephesians chapter 4 has about 25 times the number of references (about 1:4). The real staggering part of the equation of course is that 1 Corinthians 15 is far, far more significant in theological importance. Now Clement's silence is troubling.

FACT 5 when we add up the total number of Ante-Nicene references to 1 Corinthians 15we get 271 http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-...nthians15.html
FACT 6 when we add up the total number of Ante-Nicene references to Ephesians 4 we get 131 http://earlychristianwritings.com/e-...phesians4.html

In other words, whereas 1 Corinthians 15 has increases in ALL other Patristic witnesses Clement of Alexandria's references are completely out of whack with the rest of the witnesses (as Clement's demonstrate an unprecedented decline).

Let me put it in language (and colors) that you can understand aa:

S:notworthy:OMe:huh:tHI:banghead:ng PeculiaR Is going on With Clement's ci:wave::angry:tation:Cheeky: of 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

I just happened to be working on Ephesians 4. You can do any other chapter you'd like. Of course all of this is wasting too much time on you aa. I will never put you on ignore ...

aa5874

You cannot show that 1 Corinthians 15 is fake because Clement of Alexandria only have four citations.

You MUST be able to show that those citations were NOT in 1 Cor. 15 or that Clement claimed those 4 citations were in some other Epistle or book.

There are NO such statement from Clement.

Now, I have NOT forgotten what you wrote in your OP and after my research your statement is erroneous.

Well examine the Stromata and see if the LAST chapter of 2 Corinthians is mentioned.

You will find the very same pattern.

Clement of Alexandria did NOT mention 2 Cor. 13.

Is 2 Cor. 13 fake because Clement did NOT mention it?

stephan huller

Clement does make reference to this chapter. All references before 250 CE according to Biblindex:

This is a very short chapter. Now let's think about this chapter for a moment. Comparison #1:

By this comparison 1 Corinthians 16 would seem to be fake. Now when we look to the comparison you inquired about:

On the surface this shows roughly the same numbers for Clement but the comparison for other Church Fathers is off the charts. Now compare these two to Ephesians 4 again:

The point is again that there is something unusual about 1 Corinthians 15 in the citations of Clement of Alexandria. Given the fact that this chapter is so fundamentally important to Christian dogma it is unusual that Clement should cite it so little.

aa5874

Did not I specifically ask you to Examine the STROMATA to find out if 2 Cor.13 was mentioned?

Your own list SHOW that Clement did NOT mention 2 Cor. 13, the Last Chapter, in STROMATA.

But, now, Clement ONLY mentioned the Last chapter of 2 Cor.13 ONE time in the "Instructor" and you are CLAIMING it is NOT FAKE.

Well, based your on your own reasoning, 1 Cor. 14 and 15 cannot be FAKES.

1 Cor. 14 and 15 are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria.

NO, NO, NO. That is NOT your point at all. The title of your OP is not there is something unusual about 1 Cor.15 you IMPLIED and STATED that 1 Cor.15 is Fake.

Please IDENTIFY the passages, the verses, that are FAKES in 1 Cor.14, 15 and 16.

The Fact that you have ADMITTED that Clement mentioned 2 Cor. 13 only ONCE and that it is NOT Fake has destroyed your claim that 1 Cor 14 and 15 are fakes.

stephan huller

This is craziness. Not.unexpected craziness when dealing with aa. Why does it matter which book Clement references something? The question is whether Clement knows the passage

aa5874

Clement knows 2 Cor.13 and you say it is NOT Fake.

Well, Clement knows 1 Cor.14 and 15 TOO.

They are NOT fakes.

stephan huller

You have absolutely no nuance in your reasoning aside from having no English language familiarity

fake (plural fakes)
Something which is not genuine, or is presented fraudulently.
A trick; a swindle.
(soccer) Move meant to deceive an opposing player, used for gaining advantage when dribbling an opponent.

I think that while there is an authentic core to the existing 1 Corinthians chapter 15 the ancient heretics outside of the Church had a different context for 1 Cor 50.

aa5874

Well, you can just add or remove the "S" wherever you think it is applicable.

Did you say that "Fake" means to "something which is presented fraudulently"?

That is what "FAKE" means?

Now, what are you saying? I Cor.15 is an AUTHENTIC core!!!!!

Oh, Oh, it is the Context for 1 Cor. 15 that is Fake NOT the Text itself.

Well, it is all over.

aa5874

I have had enough of your diversions.

Please deal with the OP.

You are attempting to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 14, 15 and 16 are Fakes based on the QUANTITY of Citations from Clement of Alexandria.

Quantity cannot DISTURB QUALITY.

Toto

[STAFFWARN]Please stick to the topic and avoid personal comments[/STAFFWARN]