Julio

Call to all scholars and friends here.
I believe that that so-called “Apostolic Father” is one of the best proofs that there were no canonical writings in circulation [in Rome] by the year 95 CE [when he was the fourth pope, according to the “official” list of popes].
His letter to the Corinthians [First Clement] has no reference to any NT writings of weight, but only to Old Testament scripture.
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/11/23.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

dog-on

I think it's bogus, regardless of what Hegisippus (sp?) or even Ben thinks. :devil1:

Julio

It could very well be.
Clement of Rome was the fourth pope, after Peter, Linus and Anacletus, but it simply cannot be.
The second pope [or even the third or fourth] SHOULD BE the apostle John!
If he was living by the year 90 CE, naturally John would be the best candidate for the “Chair”, to hold the two “Keys” and the “Sword”, and display the sacred “Pescatorio Ring”, dressing in the full-buttoned cassock and the “mozzetta”!…
In other words, Clement is a ghost, and the “official” list of popes is a redundant LIE!!

dog-on

Seems like sometime in the later part of the second century, there were a few groups battling for control of potential members.

Someone came up with the ingenious idea of "Apostolic Succession", from this idea came fleshy Jesus and his band of merry men, who were divinely tasked to carry the keys and pass them on to the future generations.

These people then were able to make the claim that only their view was the truth and any other view was a heresy.

Julio

Your point makes sense to me.

aa5874

But, is it a 2nd, 3rd or 4th century ghost?

I think the 4th century church needed a ghost like Clement.

Who or which group had the authority to place ghosts wherever seemed fit?

Julio

More like “which” commercial venture would be helped with the papacy, really! The bottom line was that the bishops of Rome and/or Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and elsewhere had a nice life living at the expense of mentally superstitious folk. It is still true these days.
The “authority” therefore came from those who discovered an easy lifestyle living at the expense of intellectual mediocrity.

Minimalist

I tend to agree, aa, but one thing bothers me. If 'Clement' were forged in the 4th century, why wouldn't they have had him cite the writings which they had recently decided were "holy?"

If you are going to forge something, why not make it say everything you need it to say ( a la the Testimonium Flavianum) rather than something which undercuts your basic message ( as with, Pliny's letter to Trajan?)

dog-on

Maybe not forged, but simply adjusted.

Julio

It’s “religious evolution”, I guess; like in the case of the portrait of Jesus’ face on the letter he is said he wrote or dictated to Abgar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V_of_Edessa