Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 12-04-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Perhaps I am missing something, I don't see how this internal text indicates an early date.

N/A

This could have been written any time well into the second century, and indeed the indications are that a long time had passed since the alleged time of the apostles. It seems arbitrary to try to "draw a line" with this text.

1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop's office.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the
flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

1Clem 44:4
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.

Best,
Jake

Hi Jake

2 Peter claims on internal evidence to be early but is almost certainly late.

I'm talking here about the date claimed by 1 Clement on internal evidence. (It might possibly be a late text trying to present itself as early but if so one would IMHO expect a rather more explicit way of doing so.)

1 Clement presents itself as written at a time when bishops/presbyters appointed directly by the Apostles are still around to be unjustly dismissed, although they have mostly or at least partially been replaced by bishops/presbyters brought in to replace deceased bishops/presbyters of the immediately post-apostolic generation.

This is entirely plausible in the 90s CE but becoming highly unlikely after 115 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

All of the original prebsters could be dead according to these statements. The issue is apostolic succession, which according to the Church based in Rome, never expires.

Jake

tanya · 12-04-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We NOW can deduce that there was NO history of the Bishops of the Church until some time in the second century. The Bishops were INVENTED WITHOUT any records at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The issue is apostolic succession, which according to the Church based in Rome, never expires.

1. What is the earliest FIRM date, (first, second, or third century) universally acknowledged, to represent that time when the Christian church, with its Bishops, existed, somewhere? We know that by the time of Nicea, 325 CE, the Christian church was widespread, throughout the Roman Empire, and perhaps in Babylon and Persia, as well....

2. What is the evidence used to arrive at this earliest date?

sotto voce · 12-04-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

We know that by the time of Nicea, 325 CE, the Christian church was widespread

What we know is that something called the church existed at the time of Nicea. The council at Nicea was convened by an emperor. To some, that fact alone means that this council was inimical to Christianity.

Duvduv · 12-04-2011, 01:30 PM

What "Christianity" was in the 2nd and 3rd century is really anyone's guess despite intensive theorizing, hypothesizing and analyzing, and reliance on the writings of "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian", i.e. that it comprised various communities, societies, associations, etc. of all types of ideas that recounted stories of the Christ figure and was involved in certain ceremonies, probably on Sundays, as described by Justin.

Tradition says that only a minority of all known "Christian" bishops even attended the conference in 325. At the behest of the emperor himself that seems rather strange in itself. Now, what happened between the establishment of the Creed of 325 and the Constantinople Creed of 381?! Notice that the original creed strangely made no mention of CRUCIFIXION (only *suffered*), though it would seem to make a statement at the outset that would set it apart from gnosticism. We can see, however, that even in 325 they believed their Christ was incarnate as a human being(!) and not a *ghost.*
Until 385 they did not have a notion of a "catholic church." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

By the way, can anyone explain to me the concept of "ROSE AGAIN"?? This suggests that this was the SECOND TIME he rose, otherwise it should say "on the third day he ROSE, i.e. was resurrected".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

We know that by the time of Nicea, 325 CE, the Christian church was widespread

What we know is that something called the church existed at the time of Nicea. The council at Nicea was convened by an emperor. To some, that fact alone means that this council was inimical to Christianity.

sotto voce · 12-04-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What "Christianity" was in the 2nd and 3rd century is really anyone's guess despite intensive theorizing, hypothesizing and analyzing, and reliance on the writings of "Irenaeus" and "Tertullian"

Heretics both, according to the New Testament; if not each other!

Quote:

i.e. that it comprised various communities, societies, associations, etc. of all types of ideas that recounted stories of the Christ figure and was involved in certain ceremonies, probably on Sundays, as described by Justin.

Or maybe Justin wanted people to think that this habit was authentic. It suited the pattern of pagan temple worship to allocate a special day in which priests could perform. (Priests are definitely heretical in Christianity.)

Quote:

Until 385 they did not have a notion of a "catholic church."

The church had been illegal for most of its existence. Tertullian said, "The blood of the martyrs is seed," and maybe the Romans decided it made more sense to infiltrate and appoint puppet 'bishops' than sow 'seed'. Of course it had the military resources to make it's 'church' monopolistic and therefore immune from comparisons.

Quote:

By the way, can anyone explain to me the concept of "ROSE AGAIN"?? This suggests that this was the SECOND TIME he rose, otherwise it should say "on the third day he ROSE, i.e. was resurrected".

Rose to life again, I think is meant.

aa5874 · 12-04-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

We NOW can deduce that there was NO history of the Bishops of the Church until some time in the second century. The Bishops were INVENTED WITHOUT any records at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The issue is apostolic succession, which according to the Church based in Rome, never expires.

1. What is the earliest FIRM date, (first, second, or third century) universally acknowledged, to represent that time when the Christian church, with its Bishops, existed, somewhere? We know that by the time of Nicea, 325 CE, the Christian church was widespread, throughout the Roman Empire, and perhaps in Babylon and Persia, as well....

2. What is the evidence used to arrive at this earliest date?

Interestingly, Justin Martyr did NOT mention any Bishop of any Church or name the Bishop of his Church.

Justin Martyr used the term "President" as the leader of the Church and we see that a non-apologetic source, Lucian of Samosata, in his book "The Death of Peregrine" claimed Peregrine was the President of a Christian Church.

Based on Justin and Lucian, there was no such thing as Bishops up to the mid 2nd century.

Justin Martyr wrote of a President and Deacons in "First Apology" LXV

Quote:

.....And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion....

Lucian "Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

....It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself.

They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president....

Iskander · 12-04-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

1. What is the earliest FIRM date, (first, second, or third century) universally acknowledged, to represent that time when the Christian church, with its Bishops, existed, somewhere? We know that by the time of Nicea, 325 CE, the Christian church was widespread, throughout the Roman Empire, and perhaps in Babylon and Persia, as well....

2. What is the evidence used to arrive at this earliest date?

Interestingly, Justin Martyr did NOT mention any Bishop of any Church or name the Bishop of his Church.

Justin Martyr used the term "President" as the leader of the Church and we see that a non-apologetic source, Lucian of Samosata, in his book "The Death of Peregrine" claimed Peregrine was the President of a Christian Church.

Based on Justin and Lucian, there was no such thing as Bishops up to the mid 2nd century.

Justin Martyr wrote of a President and Deacons in "First Apology" LXV

Lucian "Death of Peregrine"

Quote:

....It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself.

They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

there was no such thing as Bishops up to the mid 2nd century

It does not seem to be of any significance. After all there was no Roman emperor until the year 740 AUC, approximately, but the roman Republic is also part of Imperial Rome.

History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. Philip Schaff—page 307

Quote:

The terms Presbyter (or Elder)706 and Bishop (or Overseer, Superintendent)707 denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the Synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty.708
Note 708
708 The distinction between them, as two separate orders of ministers, dates from the second century, and is made a dogma in the Greek and Roman churches.

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII., cap. 4, and can. vii. de sacramento ordinis) declares bishops to be successor of the apostles, and pronounces the anathema on those who affirm "that bishops are not superior to priests (presbyters)."

Yet there are Roman Catholic historians who are learned and candid enough to admit the original identity.

So Probst, Sacramente, p. 215; Döllinger (before his secession), First Age of the Church, Engl. transl. II. 111; and Kraus, Real-Encykl. der christl. Alterthümer (1880), I. 62. Kraus says: "Anfangs werden beide Termini [ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος] vielfach mit demselben Werthe angewendet (Act 20:17, 28; Tit. 1:5; Clem. ad Cor. I. 42, 44, 47). Noch im zweiten Jahrh. findet man die Bischöfe auch Gr. presbuteroi genannt, nicht aber umgekeht. Sofort fixirt sich dann der Sprachgebrauch: der B. ist der Vorsteher der παροικία, διοίκησις ,als Nachfolger der Apostel; ihm unterstehen Volk und Geistlichkeit; ihm wohnt die Fülle der priesterlichen Gewalt inne."The sacerdotal idea, however, does not synchronize with the elevation of the episcopate, but came in a little later.

andrewcriddle · 12-04-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

All of the original prebsters could be dead according to these statements. The issue is apostolic succession, which according to the Church based in Rome, never expires.

Jake

Hi Jake

The Greek is here.

If Clement meant

Quote:

For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

(instead of that if these should fall asleep) then I would have expected hOPWS hOTAN that when not hOPWS EAN that if.

IE Clement does not treat the complete replacement of the apostles' appointees as something the apostles knew would happen, (despite their complete foreknowledge), hence some direct apostolic appointees are presumably still around.

Andrew Criddle

sotto voce · 12-05-2011, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

It does not seem to be of any significance.

Polity is everything, surely.

aa5874 · 12-05-2011, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....there was no such thing as Bishops up to the mid 2nd century

It does not seem to be of any significance......

You seem to have no idea that the supposed Letter attributed to Clement on behalf of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth during an alleged Great Dissension is probably the most significant letter in antiquity from Christian sources.

Tertullian, supposedly the earliest Roman Church writer, clearly claimed CLEMENT was the FIRST Bishop of Rome AFTER the Apostles.

Tertullian wrote "Prescription Against the Heretics" BEFORE the 'Epistle to the Corinthians" attributed to Clement was written.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.