epronovost
Well-Known Member
Clement of Rome in the epistle to the Corinthians Is this who you are talking about?
Indeed.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Clement of Rome in the epistle to the Corinthians Is this who you are talking about?
If you understood how a creation myth is formed(evolution and involution) then Paul is a neo Moses-another myth-Moses was reared by an Egyptian but became of the leader of the Jews,so Paul was reared a jew and became the leader of the Gentiles:Moses was the law giver of the jews,and Paul was the law giver of the Christians.God spoke to Moses through a burning bush so Christ spoke to Paul from a blinding light.Moses was told to go to Sinai to receive power and Paul went to Damascus. The list goes on.Moses and Paul never existed.No they aren't fourth degree hearsay since they at least one of them discuss Paul's writings and contemporary to him. That makes him first degree. The other two are second degree accounts. None of them are hearsay since they are all considered reasonably accurate source for early Christianity's history.
Clement of Rome never mentioned any gospels or letters from anyone( Herron, Thomas J. (2008). Clement and the Early Church of Rome: On the Dating of Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road) The Catholic Enclopedia confirms that Luke´s writings were written 200 years after the so called fact.
Why would there be such a thing. Clement, who was a contemporary of Paul wrote that he was martyred and killed. He doesn't precise exactly how he was killed or by whom though he does blame Nero as "responsible for it" though you can be responsible in. Note that the story that he was executed under the order of Nero following the Great Fire of Rome is something that will be told by Tertullian in 200 AD (so about at the same time than Justin Martyr lived) and several others in the 4th and 5th century. Note that you will probably never find any eyewitness account of executions in Antiquity if only because the overwhelming majority of people who witness execution don't know how to read. Neither will you find execution orders of people unless they are very important and were so noteworthy they were recorded by historians.
Incredible,in 60 years of my studies this is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that Clement was a contemporary of Paul.No one knows anything about Paul except Luke who only wrote a complete fiction. Teruliian knew nothing of a Paul for the simple reason he never existed. If he was a Roman citizen he would of had a public trial--this is reality not a Ben Hur movie. Tacitus wrote an excellent account of the fire some 50 years after the fact and never mentions anything you have mentioned. one last note on Clement, there is no evidence whatsoever except for legend and tradition that connects him to any other persons letters.A TRADITON that began in the 3rd and 4th century,[2] has identified him as the Clement that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3, a fellow labourer in Christ. "Clement of Rome, St." Cross, F. L. (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). A tradtion is not evidence only speculation.
Note that Christians didn't change the Jewish Law. They created a new religion from a core of Jewish reformers. They agreed amongst themselves in the council of Jerusalem to allow gentille converts to Christianity not to be circumsized. Note that Paul wasn't the only person supporting this idea which would accelerate the growth of Christianity and facilitate trememdously evangelisation efforts.
Jesus said I came not to change the law but to uphold it.The Council of Jerusalem, all we know from this meeting is from Acts and a few other chapters. Again total unreliable hearsay.
First, solar myths aren't uncommon in the West and second you will need a hell of a lot more proofs because so far your theory that Paul was "unknown" until the late 3rd century AD, is easily disproven. Comparing Paul to Moses is the height of idiocy in terms of historicity is the height of stupidity.
If you understood how a creation myth is formed(evolution and involution) then Paul is a neo Moses-another myth-Moses was reared by an Egyptian but became of the leader of the Jews,so Paul was reared a jew and became the leader of the Gentiles:Moses was the law giver of the jews,and Paul was the law giver of the Christians.God spoke to Moses through a burning bush so Christ spoke to Paul from a blinding light.Moses was told to go to Sinai to receive power and Paul went to Damascus. The list goes on.Moses and Paul never existed.
I am for reality not mythology.
Thank you for your reply.Basically you say that Jesus will come with an army kill all the killers (except himself and his army of course) and than create peace amongst the people of goodwill (people of goodwill are already pacifist since that's what people of good will are supposed to be). In other words, violence will solve the problem of violence on Earth. It's a bit of a naive and self-contradictory solution.
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, angelic ( Not human) armies according to Revelation 19:14. Jesus is Commander in Chief (Hail to the Chief ! ) of angelic armies.
If you consider that the ' executional words from Jesus' mouth ' are violence then yes - Isaiah 11:3-4.
For the sake of ' justice for the righteous '
even the world executes people. Is such an execution considered as violent or as justice___________
We are forewarned, warned in advance, to ' repent ' if we don't wish to ' perish ' ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9
The Anointed said:And we accept the fact that the above is your own personal opinion.
The Anointed said:According to Torah law, Nathan, the adopted son of King David and Nathan’s descendants, were legitimate heirs of King David.
Ancient Hebrews have no conception of such things as "biological descent". They don't understand genetics and didn't knew anything about embryo fecondation. Descend comes from the father not from the mothers. Your interpretation is anachronical.
Of course genealogy is extremely important. That's how wealth is transmitted in agrarian societies at the time, but there is no official and meticulous record that is centrally organised and well maintained. Hebrews were no different than Greeks, Romans or Eyptians in that regard. You will not see such system be created until the 19th century for common people like Joseph the carpenter. Those things were of oral traditions and often of dubious accuracy when they go back further than five or six generation, especially if there is wars or destruction that breaks those chains. In the case of the genealogy of Jesus, there is the multiple wars that rvaged the region and the Babylonian exile tha complicates genealogy tremendously.
It sounds as if you are saying that Ancient Hebrew thought that the sperm alone from the male grew into the baby.
I would have thought that they knew as much about biological descent as any other humans of the day. They knew that children sometimes looked remarkably like the mother and sometimes looked like the father and they would have known something about animal breeding to get the traits of the animals involved and not just of the male animal.
The fact is that humans have not known the details of fertilisation for long, but that does not mean that they have not known about biological descent from both the male and female.
When it came to the line of Kingship and the line that the Messiah would come from it was important to keep accurate records. When it came to the descent of the priesthood it was also important. We can see these records in the Bible before and after the exile, which was only a generation or 2 btw.
Actually, the belief that sperm alone grew into a baby will remain widely accepted until the late 19th century AD. The idea was that sperm was "the seed" and a woman's womb "the soil" in which it grows. Thus, bloodlines were passed exclusively from the father and a mother only provided the proper environment. Note that infertility problems were placed upon women exclusively while men were only considered responsible of such issue only if they were incapable of having an erection and havin sexual intercourse with their wives.
It's also good to note that Ancient Hebrew believed that superficial characteristics of children like their general appearence and even health were caused by the environment and, in some case, divine will. There is, for example, the annecdote of a shepard trying to make animals born with stripes by placing his cattle in the shadow of a fence so that the shadow stripes became "absorbed" by the animal. In other words, something akin to Lamarck's theory of transformism. That's how Ancient Hebrews and more modern western civilisation explained why some children looked like their mother. It was a superficial thing the blood was that of fathers.
The Babylonian exile lasted about 60 years indeed (so about three generation), but resulted in the destructon of the Jerusalem temple with all of its archives and with it much of Ancient Hebrews tradition, records and history. It profoundly changed their civilisation. Following the exile, they would adopt a new alphabet, a see profound changes to their religious practices and theology.
Nevertheless a daughter was seen as the descendant of a father and so Mary was seen as the descendant of her father and so on back to Nathan and David.
Enough documents from the pre exile times came down to post exile times unless you want to suggest everything pre exile was made up according to oral tradition.
One of the gospels goes to great lengths to show a series of 14 generations. That is because the gematria of 'David' is 14. He is just trying to ingrain the notion that Jesus is a son of David. Discrepancies don't matter to that author.
Yes, a daughter belong to her father's household until she married in which case she belongs to her husband household. A woman in Ancient Hebrew culture cannot inherit nor give anything that belongs to her father. She belongs to her husband once she's married. If you believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, he cannot be born from the House of David, but who cares at that point. In such a scenario, Jesus would be a literal demi-god. That's a much bigger claim to power.
Considering the changes in theology and socio-political structure. Whatever documents they might have had before the exile to Babylon, the overwhelming majority of them were destroyed. The rest are pretty much a collection of oral tradition or borrowed from their captors.
Except for the over 140 times, textually, when the gematria is 24. I stopped counting in the second chapter of 2 Chronicles.One of the gospels goes to great lengths to show a series of 14 generations. That is because the gematria of 'David' is 14. He is just trying to ingrain the notion that Jesus is a son of David. Discrepancies don't matter to that author.
There is exception as given in Numbers 27:1-11 where the law was given that daughters can inherit if the father dies without sons.
I do not believe Jesus was miraculously created by direct divine intervention, I believe that the pre human Jesus was in His Father before He was conceived in and born from Mary. Mary supplied to biological link to David, Joseph the legal standing and Jesus was both human and Divine.
Hmmm, sounds like later historian ideas with the ideas of the Documentary hypothesis as their guide and the idea that writing was not a tool of pre Egyptian Hebrews nor of Moses and the Egyptian and post Egyptian society.