Sheshbazzar

IF you had read, and if you had had comprehended what I wrote, you would know that I stated that there was no actual 1st century DISSENSION of the Church of Corinth, and that 'Clement' was never an acting 'bishop' over any significant Roman church congregation;
These were just the anonymous writers metaphors and exemplars for the 'Church' -as a whole- (and of all ages) to stop their infighting, and accept the order, and authority of the established leaders, and of that organization already established, and to mutually support one another.

aa5874

Please name your sources for your claim Clement "was composed as a literary exemplar to all of the various squabbling factions".

Name the squabbling factions and when the squabble took place. Certainly your sources for the squabble can be found.

Come on, let us get those sources for when the the squabble occured. You have altered the story in the letter it is addresed to the Corinthians from the Romans.

You mean the Church wrote a letter to itself?? So why did they send out messengers??


1 Clement You must realize by now that you have discredited the anonymous letter so you should have some other credible source for your present claims about what happened unless you are using your imagination to reconstruct your own story.

Sheshbazzar

I'm still waiting for you to provide us with all of your 'non-imaginary' -'evidence'-

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED

-That the 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

You should have some non-imaginary credible source for your present claims. Unless you are using your imagination to construct a false version of history where;

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

Tell you what old boy, When you stop evading ninety percent of what I have written, I'll show you mine, when you show me yours.

Sheshbazzar

Yes. They can.

As soon as you provide your 'non-imaginary' 'credible source' for your present claims of a version of history where;

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

Did I?
Better re-read what I wrote until you can comprehend-
-That 'Clement' of ROME addressed his Epistle to the Church at CORINTH.

It shouldn't be too hard for you, if you concentrate really hard.

Sheshbazzar

Really a silly argument we are having, as anyone who has followed both of our posts in this Forum can see that we both have been long agreed that the NTs Gospels, Acts and Epistles were all written a century later than the time period they are set in, Being as we are both 'late date' Jezuz mythicists.

Just so there is no misunderstanding about the dispute that is going on here, it is quite confined to the subject of 'When was The First Epistle of Clement written'.
I have clearly set forth a date (95-100 CE back in POST #134) that I am comfortable with.

As yet my 'worthy opponent' has not been willing to commit himself to any approximate date for that writing, although THAT IS the subject of this thread, and I have asked and cajoled him (repeatedly) to give his own estimate.

Perhaps he is already aware, that if he does, I am prepared to challenge him with dozens of more questions about his version of Church history.

aa5874

I never made such claims. You are imagining things. Those are strawmen.

You are the one who have discredited the contents of the anonymous letter and have proceeded to say what you imagined happened.

aa5874

What?? Are you serious?? Five days ago I did say that the abundance of evidence suggests the anonymous letter was invented After the 5th century.

See Post #93 -21/4/12

Your memory is not quite good.

Sheshbazzar

I remember that statement vey well, after all it is what we have been sparring over ever since.

WHEN after the 5th century? The 7th century? the 10th? WHEN ?

aa5874

I can only give you my findings based on the available sources. I do NOT invent stories about the anonymous letter and fail to provide sources.

An Apologetic source "Prescription Against Heretics" attributed to Tertullian does NOT know of the anonymous letter of 95-97 CE and places Clement as bishop at around the supposed death of Peter supposedly c 67 CE based on Roman Church records

An Apologetic source "the Reognitions" places Clement as bishop immediately after the death of Peter supposedly at c 67 CE.

An Apologetic source "Against the Donatist" attributed to Optatus places Clement as bishop after Linus but BEFORE Anacletus.

And a 5th century Letter 53 attributed to Augustine places Clement AFTER Linus but Before Anacletus.

For hundreds of years based on Apologetic sources the anonymous letter was NOT known and up to the 5th century.

The anonymous letter was written sometime AFTER LETTER 53 of Augustine of Hippo or after the 5th century.

Sheshbazzar

YOUR POST #139 above, AA;
You challenge my statement that;
Alleging by your words that my evidence of this is "imaginary" and that I either have not or am unable to provide 'evidence' that the Church of the 1st century CE WAS small, disorganized, and comprised of multiple sectarian groups at odds with each other.'

Then you follow that up with the implied insult that I just BLURT out what I imagine is true.

Why in the HELL should I not be calling you out on this kind of HORSE-SHIT???

You want to MAKE a FU#KING ARGUMENT? Well then you damn well got one!

Now provide your god-damned 'non-imaginary' EVIDENCE that proves contrary to my statements that the

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE, was very LARGE.

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was VERY WELL ORGANIZED

-The 'church' of the 1st century CE was ONE UNIFIED RELIGION, WITH NO DIVISIONS, NO SECTARIAN DISSENSION, OR COMPETITION FOR MEMBERS.

Damn right it is a strawman argument. And YOU are the one that started it.

Now you can either admit that you were being a total jackass in suggesting that I should move on and leave you to make more your ass-hat statements.

OR PUT UP.

You say you have these 'non-imaginary' credible 'sources' and EVIDENCE that refute that simple statement I made about the conditions of the church
of the 1st century CE ???

Then I am asking you to provide me this amazingly 'credible' EVIDENCE and information.
Or to retract your statement.

Then we can get back to discussing When The Epistle of First Clement was written.

I have a whole lot of questions to ask you about your views on what happened between 70 CE and 325 CE.




.