Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
...The very point is that Clement back then, did not have The Gospels, so could not quote or recite from them, His actual writings as they exist do very little to give any support to Christianity's claims, yet provide very much information to discredit them...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There is support for other views on this issue. For example: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY GW BUTTERWORTH located on goggle books here; http://books.google.com/books?id=KxY...result#PPP1,M1

says-

"The writings of Clement are considerable in extent and remarkable in character. Hardly a page can be found without some quotation from the Old or New Testaments."

Carrier has--

"...no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege."

Perhaps you ought to take time to understand what you are reading before posting inappropriate replies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

"This is the problem that I briefly touched on back in post #14. Clement of ROME, who is by church tradition, allegedly the 4th Pope of the "catholic" church, ...."post #30 above

rhutchin, Nowhere in this thread have I written anything about Clement of Alexandria.
See also post #44 above, The letter of 1 Clement is by Clement of ROME (Italy) 96 AD
Not Clement of Alexandria (Egypt) 150-216 AD

My excerpt in post # 44 above is from I Clement of ROME, which is the only writing of Clement of Rome that is considered genuine.
I stated that he was alleged to be the 4th Pope of The Roman Catholic Church, (some sources say 2nd or 3rd)
his letter known by the name 1 Clement (you could read it all in just a few minutes) is dated to 96 AD.
and is accounted by Christianity as being the first and oldest non-Biblical "Church Father" letter existent.

edited to add
I Clement was included in Christian Bibles for centuries.

Solo · 01-22-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

As Richard Carrier points out, it wasn't until Marcion created his Gnostic gospel, which threatened the teachings and traditions of the majority, that the "orthodox" Christian church was finally forced to write "The Gospels" as a means of counteracting Marcions claims, and maintaining their own hold upon their congregations.

Does Richard Carrier actually say that ? Does he believe that Marcion's version of Luke was the impetus for the writing of the canonical gospels by "the church" ?

Jiri

aa5874 · 01-22-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My My, aa, Do you think I believe or accept that Jesus ever existed as a living person?
The examination of the process of the Christians creation of the New Testement canon, as Richard Carrier has done, has -nothing- to do with claiming or supporting any actual existence of Jesus.
If you really took the time to read, and to examine what Richard's article is presenting, you would become aware that he most effectively proves by the writings of the Church Fathers that The New Testement Gospels were not even written until well into the second century, and thus the Christian church was not founded upon those silly stories found in The Gospels and which you objecting to.
The very point is that Clement back then, did not have The Gospels, so could not quote or recite from them, His actual writings as they exist do very little to give any support to Christianity's claims, yet provide very much information to discredit them.
The "Jesus story writer" had not even written the "Jesus story", and these story writer(s) did not "get cooking" until well into the 2nd century.

But the very letter from the writer called Clement contradicts you, The letter writer called his Christ by the same name "Jesus"

Clement wrote that Jesus gave his blood for our sins. Clement wrote about an apostle called Peter, a name of an apostle found in the Jesus story.

The writer called Clement appeared to know about the Jesus story.

Now look at 1 Clement 42

Quote:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

I think the letter of Clement was written sometime between the 2nd and 4th century.

And when I ask the question, Who would benefit the most by making it appear that Clement did write to the Corinthians, that there was a person called Paul who also wrote to churches when it was false?

The 4th century church was one of the answers.

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

As Richard Carrier points out, it wasn't until Marcion created his Gnostic gospel, which threatened the teachings and traditions of the majority, that the "orthodox" Christian church was finally forced to write "The Gospels" as a means of counteracting Marcions claims, and maintaining their own hold upon their congregations.

Does Richard Carrier actually say that ? Does he believe that Marcion's version of Luke was the impetus for the writing of the canonical gospels by "the church" ?

Jiri

Read the article, if I have to, I can supply all of the relevant quotes.
The link was supplied so that this would not be necessary.

Toto · 01-22-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

As Richard Carrier points out, it wasn't until Marcion created his Gnostic gospel, which threatened the teachings and traditions of the majority, that the "orthodox" Christian church was finally forced to write "The Gospels" as a means of counteracting Marcions claims, and maintaining their own hold upon their congregations.

Does Richard Carrier actually say that ? Does he believe that Marcion's version of Luke was the impetus for the writing of the canonical gospels by "the church" ?

Jiri

I don't think Carrier used those words, especially "forced" and "write." Note that Carrier is summarizing Bruce Metzger's work. The idea is fairly commonplace that Marcion's gospel was the impetus for the proto-orthodox church to put together (with a final edit) the approved version of the canonical gospels.

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My My, aa, Do you think I believe or accept that Jesus ever existed as a living person?
The examination of the process of the Christians creation of the New Testement canon, as Richard Carrier has done, has -nothing- to do with claiming or supporting any actual existence of Jesus.
If you really took the time to read, and to examine what Richard's article is presenting, you would become aware that he most effectively proves by the writings of the Church Fathers that The New Testement Gospels were not even written until well into the second century, and thus the Christian church was not founded upon those silly stories found in The Gospels and which you objecting to.
The very point is that Clement back then, did not have The Gospels, so could not quote or recite from them, His actual writings as they exist do very little to give any support to Christianity's claims, yet provide very much information to discredit them.
The "Jesus story writer" had not even written the "Jesus story", and these story writer(s) did not "get cooking" until well into the 2nd century.

But the very letter from the writer called Clement contradicts you, The letter writer called his Christ by the same name "Jesus"

I did not say that Clement of Rome did not use the name "Jesus";

what I said is; "Clement back then, did not have The Gospels, so could not quote or recite from them"

That is that he, Clement, the highest ranking person in The Church of Rome in the year of 96 AD - did NOT own a single copy of any of those books latter called "THE GOSPELS", because they had not been written yet, and did not exist in their now familiar written form until at -least- 150 years latter;
Now you can insist on three or four or a thousand years latter, and it is still not going to affect the point that I was making, that Clement, and the entire Christian church of his day, did not own, or read, or quote, from any books called "The Gospels".
There was no "Gospel According to Matthew"
There was no "Gospel According to Mark"
There was no "Gospel According to Luke"
There was no "Gospel According to John"
These were all written at least 150 years latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Clement wrote that Jesus gave his blood for our sins. Clement wrote about an apostle called Peter, a name of an apostle found in the Jesus story.

The writer called Clement appeared to know about the Jesus story.

Now look at 1 Clement 42

Quote:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

And everything Clement wrote relating to his lord Jesus Christ and to the Apostolic preaching, was drawn from church tradition, and the oral recitation of those traditions, they had NO written books of "THE GOSPELS",
however, unlike you, I accept the evidence that they did possess some Pauline writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think the letter of Clement was written sometime between the 2nd and 4th century.

You think, "Sometime between the 2nd and 4th century"
Now all you have to do, is marshal some -credible-historical evidence to back up what you "think".
And decide upon the when's and the where's of your claim, and present well reasoned arguments and proofs, with a level of completeness, order, reason, and quality of scholarship as is displayed by Richard Carrier, and others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And when I ask the question, Who would benefit the most by making it appear that Clement did write to the Corinthians, that there was a person called Paul who also wrote to churches when it was false?

The 4th century church was one of the answers.

Of course, as this suspicion fits so well into your "Grand Conspiracy Theory"

My position doesn't require your blind acceptance of your impossible to perform miracles by ignorant and incompetent ecclesiastics.

I see just a bunch of stupid and superstitious men, stupidly going on about their everyday business of running their stupid and superstitious religion,
so that they could prey on the minds of the ignorant, superstitious, and stupid among mankind.

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And when I ask the question, Who would benefit the most by making it appear that Clement did write to the Corinthians, that there was a person called Paul who also wrote to churches when it was false?
The 4th century church was one of the answers.

One must wonder however, if there were no church writings or teachings before the 4th century, where did all of these "Christians" come from to invent the writings that caused Christianity to exist?
Let's see now, it took thousnds of Christians to make up the writings, that created the thousands of Christians?

And of course what was going on during those four centuries of Christian progress that have thus been stripped from history?
How would the removal of centuries of Christianity from existence affect the history of
other countries? Egypt? Turkey? Greece? Italy? Israel?
How do we then explain the existence of the "house church" at Dura Europos?

aa5874 · 01-22-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But the very letter from the writer called Clement contradicts you, The letter writer called his Christ by the same name "Jesus"

I did not say that Clement of Rome did not use the name "Jesus"..

So from where did he get the name Jesus? The letter writer called Clement use the words "Jesus Christ" virtually all the time in the letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheesbazzar

The New Testement Gospels were not even written until well into the second century, and thus the Christian church was not founded upon those silly stories found in The Gospels ....

So, if there was no Jesus story, no silly little stories about Jesus, why did Clement claim Jesus shed his blood for us? Who told the silly little stories about an apostle of Jesus named Peter? And who told the letter writer Clement about the silly little story about the apostles having the Holy Ghost that is ONLY found in Acts of the Apostles?

The letter writer called Clement appears to be familiar with Acts, the letter writer claimed the apostles preached all over after receiving the promise of the Holy Ghost, and it is believed Acts was written after the silly little Jesus stories according to Mathhew, Mark, Luke and John.

See 1Clement 42.

I think the letter writer called Clement is a fraud. The letter writer wrote after Acts of the Apostles.

Sheshbazzar · 01-22-2009, 11:53 AM

"And everything Clement wrote relating to his lord Jesus Christ and to the Apostolic preaching, was drawn from church tradition, and the oral recitation of those traditions,"
This would of course include oral recitations of various "Jesus sayings" and silly stories cleverly devised to ensnare as many souls as possible into the cult.
Objective Truth of the stories was never a factor, there were at that time thousands of these made up "Jesus" stories, the purpose was to get men to convert, remain forever in the church, and to give their unconditional support to the church and to its priesthood.
What would be accounted as fantastic stories, tall-tales, fables, or outright lies, under any other circumstances, were embraced and repeated as long as they
"did the job" of getting more members into the church, and keeping them there.
Lying for Jesus was smiled upon, as long as the telling of that whopper of a lie would result in "saving" a soul, and get that person into the church's ranks.

Yes, the letter writer called Clement was familiar with some of the church history stories that show up in Acts of the Apostles, after all, he had to have some story about how his religion had began, and was transmitted, to support his present position, but it is presumptious to think that he actually had any book called Acts of The Apostles, or that if he did posses any writings along that line, that it would conform to that "version" we now have.

bacht · 01-22-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I see just a bunch of stupid and superstitious men, stupidly going on about their everyday business of running their stupid and superstitious religion,
so that they could prey on the minds of the ignorant, superstitious, and stupid among mankind.

yeah, maybe they would have been better off with gnosticism or paganism, much more enlightened

how do you feel about New Age believers, or UFOlogists? we're in the age of Aquarius aren't we?

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

01-22-2009, 11:53 AM	#59
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	"And everything Clement wrote relating to his lord Jesus Christ and to the Apostolic preaching, was drawn from church tradition, and the oral recitation of those traditions," This would of course include oral recitations of various "Jesus sayings" and silly stories cleverly devised to ensnare as many souls as possible into the cult. Objective Truth of the stories was never a factor, there were at that time thousands of these made up "Jesus" stories, the purpose was to get men to convert, remain forever in the church, and to give their unconditional support to the church and to its priesthood. What would be accounted as fantastic stories, tall-tales, fables, or outright lies, under any other circumstances, were embraced and repeated as long as they "did the job" of getting more members into the church, and keeping them there. Lying for Jesus was smiled upon, as long as the telling of that whopper of a lie would result in "saving" a soul, and get that person into the church's ranks. Yes, the letter writer called Clement was familiar with some of the church history stories that show up in Acts of the Apostles, after all, he had to have some story about how his religion had began, and was transmitted, to support his present position, but it is presumptious to think that he actually had any book called Acts of The Apostles, or that if he did posses any writings along that line, that it would conform to that "version" we now have.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.