DCHindley

Analyst (if you are still monitoring your thread),

Jesus without Christ:

Rom. 3:26; 4:24; 10:9; 14:14;
1 Co. 5:4f; 9:1; 11:23; 12:3; 16:23;
2 Co. 1:14; 4:10f, 14; 11:4, 31;
Gal. 6:17;
Eph. 1:15; 4:21;
Phil. 2:10, 19;
Col. 3:17; 4:11;
1 Thess. 1:10; 2:15, 19; 3:11, 13; 4:1f, 14;
2 Thess. 1:7f; 2:8;
Phlm. 1:5;

"Jesus Christ", in that order:

Rom. 1:1, 4, 6ff; 3:22; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 7:25; 13:14; 15:6, 30; 16:20, 25, 27;
1 Co. 1:2f, 7ff; 2:2; 3:11; 6:11; 8:6; 15:57;
2 Co. 1:2f, 19; 4:5; 8:9; 13:5, 14;
Gal. 1:1, 3, 12; 2:16; 3:1, 22; 6:14, 18;
Eph. 1:2f, 5, 17; 5:20; 6:23f;
Phil. 1:2, 6, 11, 19; 2:11, 21; 3:20; 4:23; Col. 1:3;
1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 5:9, 23, 28;
2 Thess. 1:1f, 12; 2:1, 14, 16; 3:6, 12, 18;
1 Tim. 1:16; 6:3, 14;
2 Tim. 2:8; Tit. 1:1; 2:13; 3:6;
Phlm. 1:3, 25

"Christ Jesus", in that order:

Rom. 2:16; 3:24; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1f, 11, 34, 39; 15:5, 16f; 16:3;
1 Co. 1:1f, 4, 30; 4:15; 15:31; 16:24;
2 Co. 1:1;
Gal. 2:4, 16; 3:14, 26, 28; 4:14; 5:6, 24;
Eph. 1:1; 2:6f, 10, 13, 20; 3:1, 6, 11, 21;
Phil. 1:1, 8, 26; 2:5; 3:3, 8, 12, 14; 4:7, 19, 21;
Col. 1:1, 4; 2:6; 4:12;
1 Thess. 2:14; 5:18;
1 Tim. 1:1f, 12, 14f; 2:5; 3:13; 4:6; 5:21; 6:13;
2 Tim. 1:1f, 9f, 13; 2:1, 3, 10; 3:12, 15; 4:1;
Tit. 1:4;
Phlm. 1:1, 9, 23

Christ without Jesus:

Rom. 5:6, 8; 6:4, 8f; 7:4; 8:9f, 17, 35; 9:1, 3, 5; 10:4, 6f, 17; 12:5; 14:9, 15, 18; 15:3, 7f, 18ff, 29; 16:5, 7, 9f, 16, 18;
1 Co. 1:6, 12f, 17, 23f; 2:16; 3:1, 23; 4:1, 10, 17; 5:7; 6:15; 7:22; 8:11f; 9:12, 21; 10:4, 16; 11:1, 3; 12:12, 27; 15:3, 12ff, 22f;
2 Co. 1:5, 21; 2:10, 12, 14f, 17; 3:3f, 14; 4:4, 6; 5:10, 14, 16ff; 6:15; 8:23; 9:13; 10:1, 5, 14; 11:2f, 10, 13, 23; 12:2, 9f, 19; 13:3;
Gal. 1:6f, 10, 22; 2:17, 20f; 3:13, 16, 24, 27; 4:19; 5:1f, 4; 6:2, 12;
Eph. 1:9, 12, 20; 2:5, 12; 3:4, 8, 17, 19; 4:12f, 15, 20, 32; 5:2, 5, 14, 21, 23ff, 29, 32; 6:5f;
Phil. 1:10, 13, 15, 17f, 20f, 23, 27, 29; 2:1, 16, 30; 3:7, 9, 18;
Col. 1:2, 7, 27f; 2:2, 5, 8, 11, 17, 20; 3:1, 3f, 11, 15f, 24; 4:3;
1 Thess. 2:6; 3:2; 4:16;
2 Thess. 3:5;
1 Tim. 5:11;
Phlm. 1:6, 8, 20.

Christ's:

1 Co. 3:23; 4:10; 2 Co. 1:5; 10:7; Gal. 3:29; Eph. 4:7; Col. 1:24

God I'm sure there are other instances I have missed.

DCH

Everyone else please return to bickering about whether the author named Paul was known to the author named Clement of Rome who was not the same as the author named Clement of Alexandria, who are all, of course, fictions of the author named Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, lacky of Constantine, who ordered the fabrication of the whole Christian religion to serve his evil mania for power and glory, amen.

Sheshbazzar

If any Christian writing is from antiquity, what would make that writing inauthentic?
Do you require that all ancient Christian writings -must- agree with what is presently on hand to be accepted as "authentic"?

Which would, for example, automatically require the rejection of any find of the ancient Christian writings of Basilides or Marcion as being inauthentic,
even though they would likely be the very first and most untampered forms of actual early Christian writings that could possibly be found.

So I'm kind of curious as to what kind of criteria you would apply to determine if any writing from antiquity is to be deemed "authentic"?

Is it a requirement that they must agree with your pre-formed opinions and theories to be judged "authentic"?

Or must they first pass a test of being accepted as additional New Testement Canon by a Official Synod of The Holy Roman Catholic Church to become "authentic"?

An authentic writing from antiquity should be its own witness as to what and as to how the early believers that penned it, believed and practiced their faith at that time.
regardless of what innovations came latter.

Ooops! I forgot, there could not have been any real Basilides, his writings, or his followers.
And no Marcion, his writings, or his followers either,

Because-( drum-roll) they never existed, but were entirely invented by the evil Doctor Eusebius in the 4th century. ROFLMO!

DCHindley

Even though there are apparent direct quotes from Matt 6:12-15; 7:2; and Luke 6:36-38 in lucky chapter 13? You say this is from church tradition, maybe I suppose from the hypothetical "Q" source, but it isn't so simple:

1 Clem 13:2a for thus He spake
1 Clem 13:2b Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: [Mt 5:7/Lk 6:36]
1 Clem 13:2c forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. [Mt 6:14/Mk 11:25/Lk 6:37c]
1 Clem 13:2d As ye do, so shall it be done to you. [Mt 7:2a/Lk 6:37b]
1 Clem 13:2e As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. [Lk 6:38a]
1 Clem 13:2f As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. [Mt 7:1/Lk 6:37a]
1 Clem 13:2g As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. [Lk 6:38a again]
1 Clem 13:2h With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you. [Mt 7:2b/Mk 4:24/Lk 6:38b]

Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. [= Luke 6:36]
Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [= Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37c]
Matt 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged. [= Luke 6:37a]
Matt 7:2a For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, [= Luke 6:37b]
Matt 7:2b and the measure you give will be the measure you get. [= Mark 4:24/Luke 6:38c]

Mark 4:24 And he said to them, "Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. [= Matt 7:2b/Luke 6:38c]
Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. [= Matt 6:14; Luke 6:37c]

Luke 6:31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. [= Matt 5:7]
Luke 6:37a Judge not, and you will not be judged; [= Matt 7:1]
Luke 6:37b condemn not, and you will not be condemned; [= Matt 7:2a]
Luke 6:37c forgive, and you will be forgiven; [= Matt 6:14; Mark 11:25]
Luke 6:38a give, and it will be given to you;
Luke 6:38b good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap.
Luke 6:38c For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." [= Matt 7:2b/Mark 4:24]

I think your general dismissal of these parallels, just in this one place in the letter, all bunched together as they are, as somehow plucked from tradition out of the air so to speak, is a bit arbitrary and imposed upon the evidence.

DCH

aa5874

What I find quite odd is that you want me to accept your theory without any supporting text at all.

I think I understand your theory that the spiritual Christ preceeded the physical Jesus, however as soon as you say that the letter writer called Paul did only preach a spritual Christ, you must produce some document of antiquity to support your position.

There are 13 letters with the name Paul, all of them have the name Jesus, Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, and the letter writer claimed Jesus was the son of God who was crucified, that he died, was resurrected, and was coming back from heaven a second time for dead believers first.

If you think that the letter writer called Paul did not write about Jesus, you must produce some source of antiquity that can contradict the letters with the name Jesus.

I can no longer accept people's imaginination as evidence to support a theory.

I have theorised that the letter writers with the names Paul and Clement wrote after Acts of the Apostles, hence I must produce some source of antiquity that can support my theory and the letter of Clement, and the letter to the Corinthians by the writer called Paul have information found only in Acts.

Now, once I have found information of antquity to support my theory, I can use that finding to help to resolve other theories with respect to chronology or authenticity.

Analyst

Paul wrote 'stuff'. It wasn't Judaism. He never met Jesus. What possessed him, assuming it wasn't the ghost of Jesus? Why does he know so little about Jesus? Why wasn't it correct Judaism he wrote about a Jew?

Sheshbazzar

First off,thank you DC for getting this all together in one place.
When I first examined these texts, I had to look up each one individually and compare them word by word.
It has been noted by Biblical scholars for ages that First Clements "quotations" are unique in that they do not at any place agree exactly with the readings supplied in any of our textual exemplars.

Which indicates several things, (which I'm sure that you are also aware of, but I will post anyway, to make them obvious to others)
Foregoing any loony-tunes conspiracy theories, and working with simple posit that Clement of Rome is whom he is claimed to be, and did actually write the letter that his name is attached to, in approximately 96 AD.

First, the Epistles of Clement were included in "The Apostolic Canons" of the Syriac Church in about 380 AD. and as such recognised as being part of the NT canon, and were also accepted into the NT canon of The Eastern church in about 730 AD, in neither instance were the words of 1 Clement altered to bring them into conformity with the recieved text. This indicates that at least to some degree the church did not just indiscriminately doctor ancient texts to make them conform.
It should be noted however, that in all the Christian churches, even ones that for one reason or another did not include 1 Clement in their canon were still respectful of it, and all were indebted to it as the authoritative document that affirmed the apostolic authority of the clergy in all churches.
And in Rome's case was employed as the authoritative church document that established Roman primacy.

Secondly, the peculiarities of the wording of I Clement 13:2 in itself indicates that the verse was composed in agreement with either a memorised oral recitation of these words (likely as an oft repeated formal incantation of instruction to the congregation) or that if it derived from a written text, and was copied faithfully from that text (which was the order of the day) it was a text that does not match up to any one particular text that eventually made it into the recieved New Testement (as we have it today - and disregarding any of the older NTs that actually contain 1 Clement)

Thirdly, the above being apparent, that such text (if there even was an actual text from which the verse was copied) is variant to all others, it therefore can not be safely assumed that any other verses within the remainder of that otherwise unknown and unknowable text agrees with the contents of any of our present New Testaments.

Consider this, the text, (if there indeed was such) would be from the 1st century, at a time before such things as the Basilide and Marcionite schisms.
If such a rare and original text were to come into our hands, and its contents proved to give strong support for the views held by latter schismatics, against the direction taken by the rest of surviving Christianity, would such a text be "authentic" in the sense of representing what true Christianity really was and ought to be?
Could one single old text, reading far differently than all the millions of texts that Christians have now used for two millenia be "authentic" in the sense of representing "authentic" Christianity?
And if "authentic" then it would be all the billions of Bibles produced over the ages that were "inauthentic" leading to deviant practices against the true and authentic faith.
Of course the Christian church's would have the power to step in and declare the old book "inauthentic" by their claimed Authority and by Decree, but would doing so make what is genuine become ungenuine?

Today we have very little actual literature from the period, and what we are working with are mostly the works of the victors in these religious propaganda wars.
It would not take much at all, to turn everything that has so long been taken for granted about the Christian religion, totally upside-down.
It wouldn't even require a book, a single page could accomplish the task.

Others can dogmatically declare that they have got it all figured out and have all the right answers, while yet ignoring the fact that they are working with much less evidence than what history indicates did exist.
Unimpressed by half-baked conspiracy theories full of holes, and claims of perfectly transmitted and infallible texts, I posit that it will eventually be proven that the Christian church started out as a chrestos cult, and that the only written text of any authority in the early movement was a simple and quite primitive form of the Pauline Christological writings. The rest only cleverly added on fabricated urban legends.

I am confidently waiting for further evidence to turn up, and it certainly will.

Sheshbazzar

In my view because very little of what we read in Paul, was written by Paul, it was written by all those "other Paul's" rewriting this section and that, sticking in their imaginary Jesus god willy-nilly here, there, and everywhere, adding on entire books forged under his name.
Don't blame poor old Paul the Philosopher, he didn't create this grotesque religious monstrosity, someone stole his cloak, his bag, and his Id, to carry out their crimes.
He was the innocent victim of identity theft.
Cant wait to see those bastards finally get what's coming to them.

Sheshbazzar

Not really, doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other what you accept, only that I make it clear to you and all, that I do not accept what -you- are selling.
As my position entails that all Christian documents are de facto corrupt, it follows that no presently known Christian document could be used to support my position.
I do not accept that those 13 letters were written by one and the same Paul,
I do not believe that the real Paul had anything to do with the name Jesus being in the texts, And if the letters are all either altered or forged what difference would it make whatever their text now -claimed- they are now untrustworthy witnesses to anything.
Are you saying you are finally willing to listen to and accept the witness of the Jews against these lies?
Haven't asked you to, you only need to be made aware of the flaws apparent in your own theory, so that you will either deal with them, or move on to a better theory. In the meantime you get to learn a lot, so we all make out better.

And of course, because the only book you have that fits your theory is Acts of The Apostles, it -must- therefore be the only explanation possible?
Sorry boy, but I don't buy that line of reasoning, as what you DON'T GOT is at least a hundred times larger than what little bit you do got.
When, where, and how did Clement of Rome first come to your attention and get entered into your theory?

If the foundation is only sand....the builder builds in vain.

rlogan

No need to put this in here other than to pretend any disagreement with you is a whacko.

When what you are about to state is silly on the face of it:

Well, pretty much everthing in and around the Bible is just so trustworthy, right?

We are to believe he writes just when Josephus is publishing his work without mention of any gospel Jesus? That the competing factions and various communities corresponding over long distances were unified into a superstructure completely unnoticed by anyone?

Detering is a good read on Clement I:

http://www.hermann-detering.de/clem_engl.htm

Note that Clement was a fictional "Pope" in the alleged line between the fictional "Peter" and the official state papacy reigning in later centuries.

It was important apparently to forge an early peace between petrine and pauline versions of christianity.

The following adds to an already impressive dismissal of Clement as a forgery by other Dutch Radicals.

Hope I did not copyright infringe.

Sheshbazzar

Not just any disagreement with me, only ones that would make out old Eusebius to be the creator of 300+ years worth of Christianity.

Hardly, as the hundreds of my posts in this forum prove just how strongly I oppose its claims.
First you need to consider what I've been arguing here all along, first being that the Bible is false.
But of Josephus, naturally Josephus wouldn't have been mentioning any "gospel Jesus", because there never was one, just a few quaint stories being passed around among some members of an insignificant gentile religious cult that he likely never even heard of.
I used to be a member of a religious cult myself, and by delegation of my congregation, visited prisoners, and authoritatively representing our faith, in replies to requests, instructed and encouraged by letter, independent groups of "brethren" of similar beliefs scattered all across the globe.
Being a thoroughly peaceable and innocuous bunch, we lived quiet and productive lives and attracted very little attention from anyone.
Thus I see no problem in the existence of what was at that time just another small time "chrestus" ("good-guy") cult among many others, and so virtually invisible, operating "under the radar" and "off the screen" among all the commotion being caused by the "big fish".

Now about that big block of text that you posted, to answer all of the misconceptions and erronous conclusions would take hours.
You do not really -win points- by burying discussion under an avalanche.
Whether you infringed on copyrights or not, you infringed on good manners.