Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 11-27-2011, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a discussion here Clement IMHO the idea that Clement was ordained by Peter is a development of the earlier idea that Clement knew and worked with Peter in the church at Rome in the time of Nero.

(There is nothing particularly implausible with Clement being a church worker in Rome in the 60's and leader of the Roman church in the 90's.)

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,
out of curiosity: do you not think Romans 1:15, 10:14-15 and 15:20-21 make it somewhat difficult to assert that Christianity (in anything like the doctrine espoused by Paul) was present in Rome at the time of Paul's writing ?

Rom 1:15 - (NIV) That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Rom 10:14-15 - (RSV) But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news! (Isa 52:7)"

Rom 15:20-21 - (RSV)...making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation, but as it is written, "They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.(Isa 52:15)"

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle · 11-27-2011, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No, No, No, Andrew.

Your claim is wholly absurd. No Church writer EVER wrote anything at all like what you are now claiming.

Where did you get your story from?

I will EXPOSE your ERRONEOUS and UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.

The "Preface to the Recognitions" will utterly expose your fallacy.

The Preface to the Recognitions"

Quote:

....The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it.

But I do not think it out of place to explain here what in that letter will perhaps seem to some to be inconsistent.

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?

Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Cæsarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop.

And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter....

Andrew, your so-called explanation is NOT good, not valid, it is unsubstantiated.

Clement was INDEED bishop immediately AFTER the death of Peter but LINUS and Cletus were Bishops BEFORE Peter was dead based on the Preface of the Recognitions.

Andrew, When did the Great Dissension happen based on the Preface to the Recognitions?

And there is another MAJOR discrepancy. The Entire Chronology of ALL the Bishops AFTER Clement have been destroyed once Clement was the FOURTH Bishop at 67-68 CE or immediately after the death of Peter.

Clement of Rome, the early bishops of Rome and the Great Dissension of Corinth were FABRICATED by the Roman Church.

The Preface to the Recognitions was written by Rufinus c 400 CE as an introduction to his Latin translation. His reconciliation of the pseudo-Clementines with more authentic sources appears to be no more than guesswork.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 11-27-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

..The Preface to the Recognitions was written by Rufinus c 400 CE as an introduction to his Latin translation. His reconciliation of the pseudo-Clementines with more authentic sources appears to be no more than guesswork.

Andrew Criddle

Your EXPLANATION was written TODAY, 1600 years AFTER the Preface to the Recognitions, by sheer IMAGINATION.

Andrew, you have ZERO sources for YOUR EXPLANATION.

Your Explanation cannot be found in Aramic, Greek or Latin sources.

You SIMPLY INVENTED your explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

....If one really wanted to reconcile these claims, then one could argue that (according to 1 Clement and other sources) the early Roman Church did not distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters. The early Roman Bishops were the senior members of the order of Presbyters/Bishops rather than Monarchical Bishops in the later sense. Peter ordained Clement, Linus, Anacletus and others as presbyters. Originally Linus was senior Presbyter. On his death Anacletus became senior Presbyter without any new ordination ceremony. On the death of Anacletus Clement became senior Presbyter without any new ordination ceremony.

Hence Clement was ordained as Presbyter/Bishop by Peter in the 60's and became senior Presbyter without any new ordination ceremony c 89 CE....

Your explanation is wholly UNSUBSTANTIATED. You have ZERO sources in any language of antiquity.

andrewcriddle · 11-27-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
out of curiosity: do you not think Romans 1:15, 10:14-15 and 15:20-21 make it somewhat difficult to assert that Christianity (in anything like the doctrine espoused by Paul) was present in Rome at the time of Paul's writing ?

Rom 1:15 - (NIV) That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Rom 10:14-15 - (RSV) But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news! (Isa 52:7)"

Rom 15:20-21 - (RSV)...making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation, but as it is written, "They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.(Isa 52:15)"

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I think the first quotation merely indicates that Paul himself has not yet been to Rome.

I don't regard the second quote as being relevant.

The third quotation in context seems to be saying that Paul's emphasis on evangelism in areas where the Gospel is unknown has previously discouraged him from visiting Rome, (where presumably some form of the Gospel is already known), but given his plans to visit Spain (where the Gospel is unknown) he will visit Rome enroute.

In general Romans IMO only makes sense as intended for readers/hearers who have already heard of Christ. I am not sure what people who hadn't heard of Christ would make of it.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 11-27-2011, 09:45 PM

Again, once there was an actual Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth and there was an actual Epistle from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians then the time when Clement was Bishop of Rome could NOT have been mistaken by 25 years.

In Many, many writings there seem to be an awareness of Clement of Rome supposedly from the 1st century up to the 5th century like Ignatius, the Sherherd of Hermas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Optatus, Augustine and Rufinus.

Clement of Rome appears to be well documented but the time of his Bishopric is completely uncertain even though it is claimed he was Bishop for NINE years.

How can it be that A NINE year BISHOP cannot be properly accounted for?

The very first supposed time for Clement as Bishop of Rome seem to come from Ignatius in an Epistle to Mary.

”Epistle to Mary” attributed to Ignatius

Quote:

Now it occurs to me to mention, that the report is true which I heard of you while you were at Rome with the blessed father Linus, whom the deservedly-blessed Clement, a hearer of Peter and Paul, has now succeeded.….

Based on the "Epistle to Mary", Clement is AFTER Linus.

Again, once Clement's position has changed we don't really know how many years he was Bishop of Rome as the SECOND Bishop.

In "Church History" the SECOND Bishop Anacletus served 12 years and the Third Clement served 9 years.

What happens when Clement is the Second Bishop?

Was Clement the Bishop for 12 years or 9 years?

Was the Great Dissension during the time of THIRD bishop or whenever Clement was Bishop?

When and who wrote the Letter to the Corinthians? The Letter bears NO name. The Epistle to the Church of Corinthians is really anonymous but attributed to Clement of Rome.

Now this is Jerome.

”Jerome’s “De Viris Illustribus” 15

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.

Amazingly MOST Latins think Irenaeus is WRONG.

Where did MOST Latins get their information that Clement was SECOND?

The Latins did NOT get it from Irenaeus.

Irenaeus claimed Clement was THIRD AFTER the Apostles.

The Latins did NOT get it from Tertullian.

Tertullian claimed Clement was FIRST.

The Latins did NOT get it from Clement.

Clement claimed he was ORDAINED by Peter in his Epistle to James the Lord's brother.

The Latins did NOT GET it from Eusebius.

Eusebius claimed Clement was THIRD.

The Latins did NOT GET it from Rufinus.

Rufinus EXPLAINED that Clement was FIRST after Peter although THIRD.

It must be obvious by now that Clement of Rome with the SWITCHING BISHOPS and the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth were FABRICATED by the LATIN CHURCH, the Church of Rome.

Solo · 11-28-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
out of curiosity: do you not think Romans 1:15, 10:14-15 and 15:20-21 make it somewhat difficult to assert that Christianity (in anything like the doctrine espoused by Paul) was present in Rome at the time of Paul's writing ?

Rom 1:15 - (NIV) That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Rom 10:14-15 - (RSV) But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news! (Isa 52:7)"

Rom 15:20-21 - (RSV)...making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation, but as it is written, "They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.(Isa 52:15)"

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I think the first quotation merely indicates that Paul himself has not yet been to Rome.

I don't regard the second quote as being relevant.

The third quotation in context seems to be saying that Paul's emphasis on evangelism in areas where the Gospel is unknown has previously discouraged him from visiting Rome, (where presumably some form of the Gospel is already known), but given his plans to visit Spain (where the Gospel is unknown) he will visit Rome enroute.

In general Romans IMO only makes sense as intended for readers/hearers who have already heard of Christ. I am not sure what people who hadn't heard of Christ would make of it.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew.

I have had the impression that Paul is addressing a congregation of traditional messianists, ie. those who expected the imminent arrival of a Davidic king to Zion. The letter also introduces a team of Paul's co-workers, who presumably would provide the interpretation of Paul's gospel, without which, I am sure you are right, the letter would be baffling.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 11-28-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...I have had the impression that Paul is addressing a congregation of traditional messianists, ie. those who expected the imminent arrival of a Davidic king to Zion. The letter also introduces a team of Paul's co-workers, who presumably would provide the interpretation of Paul's gospel, without which, I am sure you are right, the letter would be baffling.

Best,
Jiri

I request that you start some other thread about "Paul and the imminent arrival of a Davidic king to Zion".

This thread is about the Fictitious character called Clement of Rome who was claimed to be Bishop of Rome for about NINE years yet his ORDER of Bishopric is documented to have occurred at numerous times which in turn have caused the order of OTHER BISHOPS to also Change.

Once there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth and Clement did DISPATCH a Letter with CLAUDIUS EPHEBUS, VALERIUS BITO and FORTUNATUS then there could have been NO mistake, no 25 year confusion.

Examine Excerpts from the Epistle of Clement

Quote:

....Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you....

How could Clement of Rome be the FIRST, SECOND and THIRD Bishop of Rome after dispatching his Epistle with Claudius, Valerius and Fortunatus?

It is obvious that Clement of Rome and the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth were FABRICATED by the LATINS.

Chili · 11-28-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Do we have texts, or coins, or statues, or buildings, from any religious movement of the first century, based in Rome? Maybe the silence of the Christians is echoed by an absence of all other social interaction in that city, during the first century?

Not meant to be a derail but please consider that 'Catholicism is not a movement as it is not Christian and there is no 'zapping' going on to create the excitement that is needed for a movement, and in fact such activity is precisely the enemy of Catholicism that just fits the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' image of the second gospel that was preached wherein saved-sinners keep going to church, which now means that there can be no such thing as a Christian religion or there would be temples in the city of God as well.

aa5874 · 11-30-2011, 10:28 PM

It is EXTREMELY important to ALWAYS REMEMBER that the writings of Church and apologetic sources should have been KNOWN and Circulated Publicly.

The explanation given by Rufinus that Linus and Anacletus were Bishops WHILE Peter was STILL alive and that Clement was bishop immediately AFTER the death of Peter SHOULD have been known to the Roman Church itself.

"The Preface to Recognitions"

Quote:

Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement.

How then, some men ask, can Clement in his letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church-teacher.

The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt, Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time...

Rufinus, an apologetic writer, places LINUS and Cletus as bishops even BEFORE Peter was dead.

But Augustine of Hippo will CONTRADICT Rufinus and Place Clement as SECOND after LINUS.

“Augustine of Hippo” Letter 53”

Quote:

….The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:Clement, Anacletus….....

Again, we have the SWITCHING Bishops of Rome.

And now the SWITCHING Bishops have ALTERED the Entire chronology of all bishops if Linus and Anancletus were Bishops while Peter was supposedly ALIVE.

How is it possible to have a PUBLICLY known and circulated Epistle of Clement and that Clement was well documented in the writings of antiquity and still the very Roman Church writers or apologetic sources did NOT know when Clement was Bishop of Rome?

1. Augustine of Hippo---------PETER -- LINUS --CLEMENT.

2. Irenaeus ------------------PETER -- LINUS--ANANCETUS-- CLEMENT.

3. Rufinus---LINUS--CLETUS--PETER--CLEMENT.

4. Terullian-------------------PETER--CLEMENT.

It is highly unlikely that the Bishopric of Clement could have been mistaken by 25 years.

Clement of Rome and the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth was fabricated by the Church.

Sheshbazzar · 11-30-2011, 11:21 PM

The church don't care. They know that most of their sheeple will never know anything about this. Or are comfortable that the sheer volume of these old patriarchal religious writings will wear them out and make them decide to simply leave it to their leaders to tell them what to think.

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

11-30-2011, 11:21 PM	#20
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The church don't care. They know that most of their sheeple will never know anything about this. Or are comfortable that the sheer volume of these old patriarchal religious writings will wear them out and make them decide to simply leave it to their leaders to tell them what to think.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.