Sheshbazzar

What needs to be mentioned here is that far more important than the any precise makeup of the Canon of Scripture in the day to day lives of early church members, were "The Apostolic Cannons" under which the church's operated, and upon which all doctrine, religious appointments, and church judgments were based.
The contents of the Canon of Scripture often varied from church to church and country to country and these variations of accepted texts and books were in most instances quite well tolerated (as they still are) An average Christian was quite free to remain very ignorant about the exact contents of the Bible (most remained illiterate anyway) But always had to be careful of not being found in violation of any of the church rules laid down in "The Apostolic Canons" which could result in a speedily and harshly applied penalty up to and including death by torture.

Today's empathis on the importance of Bible Books is far different than the ideas and attitudes of the early church, where many Bishops and Deacons thought, and taught that the spoken word of the living Church through its Ecclesia was superior to and more authoritative than words written in old books.
It was only after schisms resulted in church enemies producing books contrary to, and critical of the "orthodox" beliefs, and luring members away from the fold, that the orthodox clergy began to appreciate the advantage of having written documents to preserve their particular beliefs from contamination, and as effective propaganda tools to form the direction of the church, and to permanently demonise all that opposed.

Sheshbazzar

Maybe, who knows, maybe we would not have needed to endure a thousand years of Crusades, and the Middle East thinking we are the spawn of Satan, or have got caught up in WWII, maybe the world would be a much better place.
But that is the road not taken, so does no good to dwell on the "what ifs..."
We only get to deal with the problems of the world that we actually have. Ignorance, superstition, and stupidity are still alive and well, and political and religious powers are still manipulating for their own gains.

Conspiracy theorist, UFO nuts, and wacko religious cults of every description are alive and well. Something out there to please everyone, and anyone who don't like what is offered is free to dream up something new that is to their liking.

aa5874

So there were silly Jesus stories after all. And the letter writer called Clement knew those silly stories.

About the letter writer called Paul, did not Clement mention that he wrote some letter to the Corinthians with the name Jesus Christ? Who told the letter writer that Christ was called Jesus?

The letter writer named Paul wrote about Jesus Christ, and he wrote about an apostle named Peter.

And, the letter writer named Paul was aware of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, he claimed he spoke in tongues but the silly Holy Ghost story is found only in Acts of the Apostles.

The apostles were speaking in "tongues" , they had the gifts of the Holy Ghost before the letter writter was converted, a silly story found only Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles is believed to have been written after the silly gospel stories according to gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn.

The letter writer called Paul is a fraud, he wrote after Acts of the Apostles was written.

I now have two frauds, the letter writers called Clement and Paul, they wrote after Acts of the Apostles.



So, the church history was based on the silly Jesus stories after all.

Analyst

Where did all of the Scientologists come from?

Sheshbazzar

Obviously
That Clement (or the writer) of 1 Clement used the name "Jesus Christ", does not require that the letter writer to the Corinthians ever employed that name.
No, you assume that because the name "Jesus" now occurs in the text that you have, that it must have been in the original letter, because Clement uses it and your Bible uses it, but neither Clement or you have that original letter.
Now here you are, arguing for Clement's "Jesus" based upon a writing byClement and the reading appearing in a Bible text that you yourself say was forged in the 4th century by liars.

If this story existed and Clement and the church believed it, or even just repeated it, it would then quite naturally end up recorded in a book like "Acts of The Apostles" whenever they got around to writing down church history, which, as you are aware, could have been at any time up until around 324 AD.

Well if they were going to write down their fables, it is only reasonable that they would write them down somewhere in their accounts.
Beyond that, there were literally hundreds of books produced by the early Christians that did not make it into your Bible.
Do you know every single story that appeared in every single one of these?
How then can you be so certain that this story was only to be found in the Acts of The Apostles?
You are asserting, but have nothing to prove your assertion as being fact.
Yes, -some- do believe that, their -beliefe- however is, not sufficient to establish the -claim- as being factual. Some scholars are certain that the Acts of The Apostles were written -before- those silly Gospel stories were composed and written down, to "fill in the gaps" and provide the "human Jesus" information that the teachings of Paul and the Acts had failed to provide. (this was in reaction to the Gnostic teachings based upon unadultrated Pauline writings, that Christ didn't really have a flesh and blood human body, so the catholic church wrote The Gospels so as to use them to "prove" that "Jesus Christ" (their term) had been a real living person, that DID have a real flesh and blood body. That is why, unlike Paul and the Letters, the Gospels are filled up with "Jesus Christ" engaging in all kinds of purely human activities)
Scholars, both Christian and Atheist will be found to tend to disagree .

Not written ones, the "Jesus stories" only came about latter. In the Pauline beginnings of the Christ cult there was no "Jesus" at all, no human, no flesh and blood Jewish messiah, only a spiritual "Christ", everything else about "Jesus", "the Apostles" and "The Gospel" flesh and blood stories, was back-written, inserted and interpolated.

Sheshbazzar

Different time, entirely different social conditions.
To produce a book length text in the first century was a very expensive and time consuming proposition, every word hand-written under the most primitive of conditions, producing a single volume could take anywhere from weeks to months.
Whereas the printing presses of Scientology could produce more books in a single day, than the entire output of Christianity in its first four hundred years.
And Scientology could produce them so cheaply that they could pass them out for free on street corners, in contrast to early Christian communities that had a very only a few books, which had to be carefully preserved.
Lots of other differences and advantages too.
But then I'm sure that you do already know this.

Analyst

And yet people argue this with me. I say a gospel was the equivalent of a multi media system in a church today, or an organ a century ago.But technology changes, motives don't. L Ron Hubbard was just a later version of Paul. L Ron puffed up his biography, and tinkered with his theology to maximize income. And then there's Joseph Smith and even Mary Baker Eddy. Makes you think? It does me.

aa5874

But your own words apply to you. Your assertion that "in the Pauline beginnings there was no Jesus at all, no human, no flesh and blood Messiah" cannot be shown to be true.

You cannot produce a single letter from a writer called Paul without the name "Jesus".

Now, I can show you that the letter writers called Paul and Clement wrote after Acts of the Apostles using the extant evidence. They were aware of information found only in Acts of the Apostles. The letter writers were aware of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, a story found only in Acts.

I have proved my assertion using extant information.

You on the other hand are still looking for a letter without Jesus from Paul.

I told you already, Paul was a fraud. You will never get a letter without Jesus from Paul. Your assertions will never be able to be proven.

Sheshbazzar

Back into the context.
You have your "extant information" but what you are not dealing with is all of the evidence that clearly tells you that you do NOT have all of the information,
but are resorting to depending upon -claims- that may or may not be true.
Again the question, there were literally hundreds of books produced by the early Christians that did not make it into your Bible.

Do you know every single story that appeared in every single one of these?

How then can you be so certain that this story was only to be found in the Acts of The Apostles?

You have no way of knowing what the future will bring, in the mean time your explanation and theory is too full of holes.
Thus I'll confidently wait for further evidence.

aa5874

Well, you just show me where else in the NT you can find the story of the day of Pentecost. The story of the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost is found only in Acts of the Apostles.

And, I will show you that your questions are of no consequence and really irrelevant.

Are you sure that any writing of antiquity is authentic? Do you know what the missing texts contain?

It should be obvious that you have no way of knowing if all writings of antiquity are authentic and what is missing, yet you want me to accept your theory based on your assumption without one single piece of extant evidence.

We can only deal with the evidence we have before us and not what is out there somewhere that you presuppose will support your position.

Perhaps all the missing information are additional evidence that supports my position, that Paul and Clement are frauds and did write after Acts of the Apostles.

No, I found massive holes in your explanation and theory, that is why you are waiting for further evidence.

You can't find a letter without Jesus from Paul. And, you can't find a Holy Ghost baptism story outside of Acts. And, you don't even know if there any information that can support you.

Keep waiting.

I don't have to wait, I have evidence.

Acts 2.1-4 The letter writers caled Paul and Clement were aware of Acts of the Apostles, they were frauds.