Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 01:09 AM

So if each of these writers actually lived later than the second century in a more matured Christian environment, then the reason for the disparity was that Clement did not really exist. But then possibly neither did Ignatius or Irenaeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, all writings of apologetic sources and Church writers should have been PUBLICLY known and CIRCULATED.

The supposed letters of Ignatius do clearly show that he regarded Bishops as the highest authority.

The Bishop was to considered as God or Jesus Christ.

Examine the Epistles to the Magnesians.

Quote:

..... I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons...

Examine the Epistles to the Trallians .

Examine the Epistle to the Philadelphians.

Examine the Epistle to the Smyrerians

Quote:

...See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop....

So based on the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, the Bishop was the most significant authority in the Church structure and Nothing was to be done WITHOUT the authority of the Bishop.

The Bishop represented God and his Son Jesus.

How, then could the Church writers not know when Clement was Bishop of Rome?

1. Rufinus claimed Clement was the FIRST Bishop.

2. Ignatuis claimed Clement was Second.

3. Irenaeus claimed Clement was THIRD.

4. Tertullian claimed Clement was FIRST.

5. Eusebius claimed Clement was THIRD.

6. Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND.

Please remember that these writers should have been KNOWN by the Public and their writings should have been circulated.

It is clear that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops and the Epistle to the Corinthians attributed to Clement were invented and has Exposed the fact that writings from so-called Church writers were products of Fraud.

Duvduv · 12-06-2011, 10:25 AM

It's interesting to notice that Eusebius ignores Tertullian in this matter, yet relies on him for so much else (UNLESS we are seeing here evidence that in fact Tertullian did not exist previous to Eusebius as a reliable authority from the end of the 2nd century at all).....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So if each of these writers actually lived later than the second century in a more matured Christian environment, then the reason for the disparity was that Clement did not really exist. But then possibly neither did Ignatius or Irenaeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, all writings of apologetic sources and Church writers should have been PUBLICLY known and CIRCULATED.

The supposed letters of Ignatius do clearly show that he regarded Bishops as the highest authority.

The Bishop was to considered as God or Jesus Christ.

Examine the Epistles to the Magnesians.

Examine the Epistles to the Trallians .

Examine the Epistle to the Philadelphians.

Examine the Epistle to the Smyrerians

So based on the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, the Bishop was the most significant authority in the Church structure and Nothing was to be done WITHOUT the authority of the Bishop.

The Bishop represented God and his Son Jesus.

How, then could the Church writers not know when Clement was Bishop of Rome?

1. Rufinus claimed Clement was the FIRST Bishop.

2. Ignatuis claimed Clement was Second.

3. Irenaeus claimed Clement was THIRD.

4. Tertullian claimed Clement was FIRST.

5. Eusebius claimed Clement was THIRD.

6. Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND.

Please remember that these writers should have been KNOWN by the Public and their writings should have been circulated.

It is clear that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops and the Epistle to the Corinthians attributed to Clement were invented and has Exposed the fact that writings from so-called Church writers were products of Fraud.

aa5874 · 12-07-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's interesting to notice that Eusebius ignores Tertullian in this matter, yet relies on him for so much else (UNLESS we are seeing here evidence that in fact Tertullian did not exist previous to Eusebius as a reliable authority from the end of the 2nd century at all).....

But, how could Eusebius ignore the writings of Tertullian that were supposedly PUBLICLY known and CIRCULATED in the Roman Church for at least 100 years earlier?

How could Eusebius ignore the supposed PUBLISHED and Circulated writings of CLEMENT where it was stated that he was ORDAINED by Peter based on Rufinus?

Rufinus IGNORED Eusebius' claim that Clement was Bishop at around 92 CE and placed Clement as Bishop at around 67-68 CE.

Augustine of Hippo IGNORED both the Published and Circulated writings of Rufinus and Eusebius and stated that Clement was Bishop AFTER Linus.

Everytime the chronology for Clement is rotated the Great Dissension must rotate with Clement.

The fraudulent writings of the Roman Church has been EXPOSED.

All writings with Clement as a Bishop of Rome and that he wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth during a Great Dissesion are not credible.

mountainman · 12-07-2011, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

All writings with Clement as a Bishop of Rome and that he wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth during a Great Dissesion are not credible.

The "Shepherd of Hermas" appears in the earliest Greek new testament codices and apparently alludes to Clement. We know it was axed from the canon by the year c.376 CE.

Also see Clementine literature

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Clementine literature (also called Clementina, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, The Preaching of Peter, Kerygmata Petrou, Clementine Romance etc.) is the name given to the religious romance which purports to contain a record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history.

........ Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii (AD 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:

"And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement's, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients."

Some days in the archives are more serindipitous than others ....

aa5874 · 12-08-2011, 09:17 PM

I will continue to show that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops and the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth are INVENTIONS of the Roman Church.

There is a Church writer under the name of Jerome and there are certain writings attributed to him.

Incredibly, Jerome will STATE that Clement of Rome was the FIRST Bishop of Rome in one book, and then say that he was THIRD Bishop in the other.

Examine "Against Jovinianus" attributed to Jerome---Clement is the FIRST Bishop after the Apostles.

Against Jovinianus

Quote:

These are they to whom Clement, who was the successor of the Apostle Peter, and of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention, wrote letters, directing almost the whole of his discourse to the subject of virgin purity....

Examine "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome---Clement is the THIRD Bishop after the Apostles

De Viris Illustribus

Quote:

Clement.............. the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle....

So far, I have shown that Rufinus claimed Clement of Rome was the FIRST Bishop AFTER Peter but was Still THIRD Bishop immediately After Peter died.

Rufinus EXPLAINED that Linus and Anacletus were Bishops BEFORE Peter died.

Now it is shown that Jerome made a MOST absurd claim--Clement was the First Bishop After the Apostles in "Against Jovinianus" and in "De Viris Illustribus" he was the THIRD.

But the absurdity of Jerome is NOT over.

Jerome will SATE that MOST LATINS, the people of Roman Church, claimed Clement of Rome was SECOND Bishop after the Apostles.

De Viris Illustribus

Quote:

...... most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle....

When did the Great Dissension of Corinth occur?

When did Clement write the Epistle to the Corinthians.

When were the messengers, Claudius, Valerius and Fortunatus DISPATCHED with the Epistle of Clement?

The fraud of the Roman Church has been uncovered. Their Switching Bishops and Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians during the Great Dissension were INVENTIONS.

mountainman · 12-15-2011, 12:23 AM

Was Tertullian an historical person? He seems to used as a source for many things incuding the "Christian Trinity" as distict from the "Platonic Trinity". Momigliano in a review of Barne's indirectly "suggest" that Tertullian may not in fact be a living figure.

Here is the opening statement and closing statement from the review.

Quote:

Professor Barnes's book is a vigorous attempt to describe Tertullian’s religious life within his own time: ‘within this objective framework ... Tertullian must be treated as a living figure

...[...]...

My favourite quotation from Evans's notes on Tertullian is about Adv. Marc. 2, 10, 3 : ‘That the animals of Gen.2: 18-20 were angels is apparently a fancy of Tertullian's own’. This is the sort of thing we need to know in order to understand Tertullian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's interesting to notice that Eusebius ignores Tertullian in this matter, yet relies on him for so much else (UNLESS we are seeing here evidence that in fact Tertullian did not exist previous to Eusebius as a reliable authority from the end of the 2nd century at all).....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So if each of these writers actually lived later than the second century in a more matured Christian environment, then the reason for the disparity was that Clement did not really exist. But then possibly neither did Ignatius or Irenaeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, all writings of apologetic sources and Church writers should have been PUBLICLY known and CIRCULATED.

The supposed letters of Ignatius do clearly show that he regarded Bishops as the highest authority.

The Bishop was to considered as God or Jesus Christ.

Examine the Epistles to the Magnesians.

Examine the Epistles to the Trallians .

Examine the Epistle to the Philadelphians.

Examine the Epistle to the Smyrerians

So based on the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, the Bishop was the most significant authority in the Church structure and Nothing was to be done WITHOUT the authority of the Bishop.

The Bishop represented God and his Son Jesus.

How, then could the Church writers not know when Clement was Bishop of Rome?

1. Rufinus claimed Clement was the FIRST Bishop.

2. Ignatuis claimed Clement was Second.

3. Irenaeus claimed Clement was THIRD.

4. Tertullian claimed Clement was FIRST.

5. Eusebius claimed Clement was THIRD.

6. Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND.

Please remember that these writers should have been KNOWN by the Public and their writings should have been circulated.

It is clear that Clement of Rome, the Switching Bishops and the Epistle to the Corinthians attributed to Clement were invented and has Exposed the fact that writings from so-called Church writers were products of Fraud.

jakejonesiv · 12-15-2011, 04:33 AM

Would should treat Arnaldo Momigliano as a living figure too because he lived in his own time. :tombstone:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Was Tertullian an historical person? He seems to used as a source for many things incuding the "Christian Trinity" as distict from the "Platonic Trinity". Momigliano in a review of Barne's indirectly "suggest" that Tertullian may not in fact be a living figure.

Here is the opening statement and closing statement from the review.

Quote:

Professor Barnes's book is a vigorous attempt to describe Tertullian’s religious life within his own time: ‘within this objective framework ... Tertullian must be treated as a living figure

Chili · 12-15-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My favourite quotation from Evans's notes on Tertullian is about Adv. Marc. 2, 10, 3 : ‘That the animals of Gen.2: 18-20 were angels is apparently a fancy of Tertullian's own’. This is the sort of thing we need to know in order to understand Tertullian.

But you don't really believe there was history in Genesis do you? and is that not where we must come full circle today and walk on that water set aside then?

Duvduv · 01-28-2012, 05:50 PM

Regardless of who Clement of Rome was or was not, when would the story in the Clementine Homilies under that name have been written which describes the trip to Judea to find the man Jesus who resurrects the dead and heals the infirm with no implication of messianism?
It certainly doesn't sound like a messianic figure of the gospels or the Christ of the epistles. It does sound like something related to either the Talmudic stories or to Toldoth Yeshu.

aa5874 · 01-28-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Regardless of who Clement of Rome was or was not, when would the story in the Clementine Homilies under that name have been written which describes the trip to Judea to find the man Jesus who resurrects the dead and heals the infirm with no implication of messianism?
It certainly doesn't sound like a messianic figure of the gospels or the Christ of the epistles. It does sound like something related to either the Talmudic stories or to Toldoth Yeshu.

You seem to deal with the how "things sound" but I deal with sources of antiquity.

I have shown that Clement of Rome is a fictitious character using sources of antiquity not from the way "things sound".

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

01-28-2012, 05:50 PM	#59
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Regardless of who Clement of Rome was or was not, when would the story in the Clementine Homilies under that name have been written which describes the trip to Judea to find the man Jesus who resurrects the dead and heals the infirm with no implication of messianism? It certainly doesn't sound like a messianic figure of the gospels or the Christ of the epistles. It does sound like something related to either the Talmudic stories or to Toldoth Yeshu.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.