Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-22-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1 Clement is useless as a historical indicator.

Progress!

Deep.

sotto voce · 04-22-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1 Clement is useless as a historical indicator.

Progress!

Deep.

Deep enough.

spin · 04-22-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1 Clement is useless as a historical indicator.

Progress!

Deep.

Deep enough.

...to drown a flat worm.

aa5874 · 04-22-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The APOLOGETIC text of 1 Clement to you then must be inviolable, its every word to be accepted, and as being EVIDENCE penned by its original writer exactly as it now appears...

It is most remarkable that you ACCEPT the anonymous letter as an early source but turn around accuse me of accepting the letter as factual when I state the anonymous letter was written AFTER the 5th century.

You are the one who accepts the contents of the anonymous letter as factual. Your posts are RECORDED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...In my view, based entirely upon the internal evidence of 1 Clement (and no questionable 'church traditions') 1 Clement is the oldest of the NT writings and pretty much the seminal text used to create all that follows.
Not that Clement himself was not drawing on earlier sources, simply that those sources were NOT the fully composed and polished NT Gospels and Epistles that we are now familiar with....

Please, I REJECT your claim and do NOT consider the anonymous letter to be historically accurate since apologetic sources from the 2nd and up to the 5th century are NOT aware of it.

sotto voce · 04-22-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1 Clement is useless as a historical indicator.

Progress!

Deep.

Deep enough.

...to drown a flat worm.

True. It's all you offered that was worth attention.

MrMacSon · 04-22-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

ALL we have are the WRITTEN statements from Apologetic sources. We have No artifacts and we have No dating by Paleography or Scientific means for the anonymous letter.

I can ONLY use the WRITTEN statements from antiquity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And of course you MUST consider anything contained within those WRITTEN statements as being inviolable and FACTUAL.

Really? Must consider them as inviolable and factual?

There are a number of reasons, such as a more isolated sect or less educated sect trying to to write their own religious texts ...
.

Sheshbazzar · 04-22-2012, 05:21 PM

The statement was intended to be ironic.

It is presented by the Christian Church that 'Clement' was one of the most respected and prominent of the Early Christian Church Fathers and Writers.

Anyone is most welcome to look up as much information on this 'Clement' as they can find.

The Church certainly has not represented this 'Clement,' the alleged 1st century bishop and author of the Epistle of 1 Clement, as being a member of a 'more isolated sect' or of a 'less educated sect'.

How they manage to integrate all of that available information on 'Clement', with that position aa is here advocating is going to be their own problem.

MrMacSon · 04-22-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And of course you MUST consider anything contained within those WRITTEN statements as being inviolable and FACTUAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The statement was intended to be ironic.

It is presented by the Christian Church that 'Clement' was one of the most respected and prominent of the Early Christian Church Fathers and Writers.

Anyone is most welcome to look up as much information on this 'Clement' as they can find.

OK; I took the uppercase as emphasis, not sarcasm.

Sheshbazzar · 04-22-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

There is NO way you can show that Rufinus, Tertullian, Optatus and Augustine knew of the anonymous letter and up to the 5th century.

Irenaeus of Lyons (175-185 CE) Adversus Haereses Book III Chapter III, Verses 2, 3

Quote:

"Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth,....

Tertullian, (writing c. 199 CE) De Praescript. Chapter XXXII

Quote:

"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."

Eusebius (about 324 CE) Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 24.—The Order of the Gospels.

Quote:

"1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers...."

There are more that may be located.

These guys must have never read, or got acquainted with each other.

Did Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusibius live and do their writing in the 5th century aa?

How is it then that we have them writing about 'Clement' and his anonymous Epistle?

aa5874 · 04-22-2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Irenaeus of Lyons (175-185 CE) Adversus Haereses Book III Chapter III, Verses 2, 3

Quote:

"Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth,....

Tertullian, (writing c. 199 CE) De Praescript. Chapter XXXII

Quote:

"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter."

Eusebius (about 324 CE) Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 24.—The Order of the Gospels.

Quote:

"1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers...."

There are more that may be located.

These guys must have never read, or got acquainted with each other.

Did Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusibius live and do their writing in the 5th century aa?

How is it then that we have them writing about 'Clement' and his anonymous Epistle?

You don't even realize that you have shown the very contradiction.

Tertullian claimed the Church records show that Clement of Rome was bishop AFTER Peter which is NOT c 95-97 CE as suggested by "Against Heresies".

If Tertullian used Roman Church records then what did Irenaeus use???

Based on Tertullian up to the 3rd century there is nothing on Clement as bishop c 95-97 CE.

Based on Optatus, up to the 4th century there is NOTHING on Clement as bishop c 95-97 CE.

Based on Augustine, up to the 5th century there is NOTHING on Clement as bishop c 95-97 CE.

The anonymous letter was unknown up to the 5th century and most significantly the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth was INVENTED.

If there was a GREAT DISSENSION at 95-97 CE then ALL Apologetic sources would have known Clement was bishop at that time but for hundreds of years even the Romans claimed Clement was bishop 30 years earlier AFTER the supposed death of Peter c 67 CE.

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

04-22-2012, 05:21 PM	#117
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The statement was intended to be ironic. It is presented by the Christian Church that 'Clement' was one of the most respected and prominent of the Early Christian Church Fathers and Writers. Anyone is most welcome to look up as much information on this 'Clement' as they can find. The Church certainly has not represented this 'Clement,' the alleged 1st century bishop and author of the Epistle of 1 Clement, as being a member of a 'more isolated sect' or of a 'less educated sect'. How they manage to integrate all of that available information on 'Clement', with that position aa is here advocating is going to be their own problem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.