aa5874

Again, we see Andrew Criddle is attempting to use ONE single source to determine the date of the anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome when he KNOWS that there are MULTIPLE sources that CONTRADICT "Against Heresies".

Even people of ROME, the Latins, CONTRADICT the order of the bishopric of Clement as stated in "Against Heresies".

De Viris Illustribus Clement was supposedly a bishop of ROME and MOST people of ROME think Clement was the SECOND Bishop and NOT the fourth as stated in Against Heresies.

We have a BLACK-HOLE for the order and TIME period of the Bishops of Rome.

Every change in th order of Clement MUST mean the order of the other bishops also change and is UNCERTAIN.

Tertullian a supposed LATIN writer claimed Clement was SECOND bishop of Rome after Peter based on the REGISTER of the Roman Church.

WHERE did the author of "Against Heresies" get his information about Clement???

It was NOT from the Registers of the Roman Church.

"Prescription Against Heretics[/u] The RECORDS of the Roman Church should have been known BEFORE the supposed Irenaeus arrived there.

Based on the supposed Tertullian the RECORDS of the Roman Church show Clement was Bishop of Rome sometime around c 67 CE or that Peter was the immediate predecessor of Clement.

The Records of the Roman Church should have been WRITTEN and CIRCULATED about 100 year BEFORE Irenaeus.

Where did Irenaeus get his list of Bishops of Rome???

He could NOT have used the RECORDS of the Romnan church based on Tertullian.

We have RE-DISCOVERED a fruadulent writing called "Against Heresies".

"Against Heresies" is historically and chronologically bogus based on Apologetics sources and cannot be considered as a credible source for information about the supposed Clement of Rome.

Toto

Welborn's article is reprinted as a chapter in Encounters With Hellenism: Studies on the First Letter of Clement (or via: amazon.co.uk) ed Cilliers Breytenbach, L. L. Welborn, and may be available at the preview on google books

Toto

Fascinating article, from what I could read of it. It seems that the case for any persecution under Domitian is based on mistranslations. Eusebius tried to show that Christians did well in the Roman Empire, except under bad emperors who also persecuted the Roman aristocracy.

aa5874

We have apologetic sources of antiquity with Fascinating statements about the supposed Clement of Rome.

The order of the bishopric of Clement was made irrelevant in "the Recognitions".

Clement was allegedly bishop of Rome IMMEDIATELY AFTER the supposed death of Peter whether of NOT he was second or fourth bishop.

The Recognitions The Recognitions is compatible with Prescription Against Heretics.

The anonymous letter attributed to Clement could NOT have been written at 95-100 CE by Clement if he was bishop of Rome c 67 CE.

la70119

Yes, it is a fascinating article. Thanks for the preview. Looks like the so-called Domitian Persecution was not a religious presecution of Xtians, but a political persecution of Domitian's perceived enemies. Including one Flavius Clemens whom Suetonius considered to be not involved in any political plot because he had a reputaion of being contemptibly inert!

aa5874

We have Existing Codices and they REVEAL that the Short-Ending gMark was INTERPOLATED.

There is NO need to guess or assume.

We have the short-ending gMark found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices.

And, it is the very Interpolation of the Last chapter that is the FOUNDATION of the Jesus cult.

It is in the Interpolated gMark that the disciples were COMMISSIONED by the Fictitious Resurrected Jesus.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

The Interpolated addition to the Short-Ending gMark is NOT even plausible--it is total absolute fiction. Even if Jesus did live he could NOT have resurrected and could NOT Commissioned the disciples AFTER he was DEAD.

The addition of the interpolated 12 verses completely CHANGED the short-ending gMark Jesus story.

The short-ending gMark Jesus story was about a SECRET Messiah, the Son of God, who revealed certain details to his disciples that was NOT known to the Jews.

PRIVATELY, in gMark, Jesus would tell his disciples that he did NOT really come to save the Jews but that he came to make SURE that they remained in Sin and that the Jewish Temple would fall.

No OUTSIDER knew such things because gMark's Jesus would DELIBERATELY speak in parables.

The short-ending gMark Jesus came to fulfill prophecy NOT to save.

And that is PRECISELY how the short-ending gMark ended.

From an examination of the FIVE Canonized Gospels in the Existing Codices it is the Last Gospel that show Jesus as a UNIVERSAL SAVIOR who was SACRIFICED for Remission of Sins so based on the Gospels Jesus as a SACRIFICED UNIVERSAL SAVIOR is the LAST version of the Jesus story.

The Pauline writings ALSO depict Jesus as a SACRIFICED UNIVERSAL SAVIOR.

The Pauline writings are AFTER the short-ending gMark and is Compatible with the later versions of the Jesus.

tanya

Thanks for the link, very interesting book. $75 used....

Was this letter of Clement to the Corinthians, also edited, before inclusion into Codex Alexandrinus? For that matter, was the letter created de novo for inclusion into Codex Alexandrinus? Where else do we find independent attestation for existence of this letter, before the third century? Andrew has noted that Clement's letter was described by the Latin text of Irenaeus, itself dating from well after the fourth century.....

aa5874

So, again we see that Andrew Criddle is wrong. There is no direct evidence for knowledge of the Pauline writings.

The letter is anonymous and is NOT dated by paleography or scientific means to the 1st century.

aa5874

The Short-ending gMark found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices destroys any claim that the Pauline writings are the earliest in the Canon.

It will be shown again the short-ending gMark PREDATED the Pauline letters.

In the Pauline writings, a writer claimed he "Spoke in Tongues" and that "Speaking in Tongues" was for the Unbelievers.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV Now, in the short-ending gMark there is NOTHING whatsoever about "Speaking in tongues". The short-ending gMark Jesus did NOT tell his supposed disciples that they would MAGICALLY become bi-lingual in order to preach the Gospel to all Nations.

It would appear the preaching of the Gospel needed people who could Speak in other tongues so a LATE story was fabricated to make the supposed Fishermen MAGICALLY bi-lingual.

But, the short-ending gMark disciples did NOT need to Speak in tongues they had either betrayed, abandoned or denied Jesus and the women visitors told NO one he was resurrected.

The supposed disciples of the short-ending gMark did NOT tell anyone Jesus was resurrected or preached any gospel. They did NOT evangelise the The Roman Empire.

It was the supposed disciples of the INTERPOLATED gMark that needed to Speak in tongues--they needed to be multi-lingual because the Resurrected Jesus, the non-historical Jesus, would Commission the disciples to PREACH the gospel to EVERY Creature.

Mark 16.17 KJV In order to preach the Gospel to EVERY Creature it was necessary for disciples to be able to Speak the Tongue of all people of the World.

This was Magically accomplished with the fictitious Gift of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost when the disciples began to Speak other languages.

The disciples of short-ending gMark did NOT Speak in Tongues but the disciples of the Interpolated gMark and Paul Spoke in Tongues.

The Pauline writings are Compatible with the INTERPOLATED gMark and were composed AFTER the Short-ending gMark.

Adam

The speaking in tongues came 50 days after the Resurrection, so you're saying that the Sinaiticus short-ending gMark was written within that 50 day period? You're more HJ than I am!