If the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible, then please explain why Clement of Rome said that Judith is scripture in his letter to the Corinthians?

[NathanH83]

If I need to “read the whole letter of 1 Clement”, then your quote does not make your case and prove your statement, does it? That is my point. You have not proven what you claim is even so. It is not my responsibility to prove your points by researching the question. I am content to accept that IF Clement said what you claim he said, then Clement was wrong. Many great men of God have said and done things that were wrong. It is Scriprure that is God Breathed and infallible, not men.
“All Jews are pigs” - Marin Luther ... was he correct? Does that make him wrong when he also wrote “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.”?

That doesn’t answer my question.
How did Clement not get informed that Judith doesn’t belong?

If Peter and Paul informed the churches of Rome and Corinth that Judith isn’t scripture, then how is it that Clement, the church leader, was not informed about this? Clement lived the same time as Peter and Paul, as says so in his letter. He was ordained over the church of Rome. How could he not be informed of something so basic?

If you’re not willing to read 1 Clement, then you can just admit that you’re uninformed, and therefore don’t have an answer.

 

[Josiah]

That doesn’t answer my question.
How did Clement not get informed that Judith doesn’t belong?

Your question, respectfully, is absurd... and substantiates NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Instead of just regurgitating completely irrelevant questions, prove that the whole church on earth authoritatively and officially declared that the Book of Judith is the inerrent, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Just quote the official, authoritative declaration of that.... Your CLAIMING that some individual dude MIGHT have had an opinion about something says nothing - absolutely nothing - nothing whatsoever about what the Church believed or held or did, anymore than Brigham Young or Martin Luther or Mary Baker Eddy or Joel Omsent opinionating about something. Your apologetics is beyond absurd, and baseless.

If you’re not willing to read 1 Clement, then you can just admit that you’re uninformed, and therefore don’t have an answer.

IF the book said, "The church catholic at its meeting at __________officially declared the Book of Judith to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans" you'd need to confirm that such a meeting happened and that it had such a universal, binding resolution that the whole church on earth submitted to. If you only saw some OPINION of one dude.... then all we have is the OPINION of one dude.... If you believe that any opinion of any individual is thus the Voice of God then you need to substantiate that. If you want to go BEYOND the claim of the RCC and claim this former Pope of that denomination was infallible in ALL HIS OPINIONS AND WRITINGS (something the RCC never has claimed of any pope) then all rests on that claim that Catholic Popes are infallible in EVERYTHING they say or write, and you then need to substantiate that. But the most you are even CLAIMING is that one dude.... one time..... suggested that Judith is written down. Well... Brigham Young claimed even more about the Book of Mormon and we know MILLIONS agreed with him (we can document both). Friend, LOTS of Christians have opinions..... doesn't mean ergo they are the authoritative, official, binding declaration of the whole church on earth, that "The Church" declares such. That SHOULD be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else.




.

 

[Andrew]

First, thank you for providing a source.

Now then, here is your original statement from the OP:

Let’s just take it as a given for the moment that Clement actually did know Peter and Paul (proving or disproving that is FAR too much effort).

Nothing in the above quote indicates that it was written to the Corinthians, but that is also a point not worth arguing over. So for this discussion, I am willing to assume that it was written to the Church in Corinth.

I acknowledge that the letter does reference both the person of Esther and Judith and appears at first glance to reference an event in the book of Judith (I have no desire to conduct a scholarly examination of the letter of Clement and the book of Judith to determine whether or not he is directly referencing the Book of Judith).

Where I will draw a line in the sand is the observation that Clement NEVER refers to anything as SCRIPTURE in the quoted reference. So Clement most certainly has not claimed that Judith is scripture that belongs in the Bible. Clement merely offered the actions of Judith as an example of love.

So we know for certain that the book of Judith existed and was used by Clement of Rome as an example for women at the church.. We know that the hearers understood who Judith was, we know that it was in the Septuagint/LXX and we know that prior to Jerome the church had it in their bible without the title of "apocrypha", we also know who Clement was, yet this book is no more worthy than the book of mormon?

 

[atpollard]

That doesn’t answer my question.
How did Clement not get informed that Judith doesn’t belong?

If Peter and Paul informed the churches of Rome and Corinth that Judith isn’t scripture, then how is it that Clement, the church leader, was not informed about this? Clement lived the same time as Peter and Paul, as says so in his letter. He was ordained over the church of Rome. How could he not be informed of something so basic?

Here is my final answer (now it is your turn to prove me wrong rather than my responsibility to prove you correct):

1. Clement lived at the same time as Peter and Paul, but Peter and Paul never said anything to Clement.
2. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Peter was to refer to the writings of Paul as scripture.
3. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Paul was that all scripture is God breathed, and Paul was referring to the traditional Orthodox Pharisee definition of scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles.
4. Neither Peter nor Paul ever made any comment on the status of Judith as inspired or non-inspired, so Clement learned NOTHING on the subject from either Apostle.
5. Clement did not actually refer to Judith as scripture; you are reading your beliefs into a general statement that Clement made.
6. ANYONE that claims Judith is ‘God breathed’ and infallible Holy Scripture like Genesis or the Book of Romans is incorrect.

Let me know if I left any of your questions unanswered.

 

[Josiah]

So we know for certain that the book of Judith existed and was used by Clement of Rome as an example for women at the church..

Well, it seems one person referenced that example. If you go to many Protestant churches tomorrow, you may WELL find used in the sermon video clips of TV shows or movies or news stories.... you may find clips of singers.... perhaps even an story or illustration. If you go to a Catholic Church, you may hear about some saint or perhaps some papal or church statement. Doesn't mean ERGO all TV shows and files and lyrics of songs and sermon illustrations... or endless stories about saints..... THUS have been authoritatively and officially declared by The Church to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. It just means one person used it as an example for women in the church.

We know that the hearers understood who Judith was

Maybe....

we know that prior to Jerome the church had it in their bible

Wrong.

There was and is no official, authoritative declaration of The Church as to what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. For the first THREE HUNDRED YEARS, lots of books and writings were used by Christians...... some of which we still use a lot, some are never used now.... Christians quoted hundreds of people from their writings. By around 400, we find a tiny number of regional, NON-ecumenical, NON-authoritative, synods that address the issue of the lectionary (what is read during the Mass) but the lectionary is NOT in ANY SENSE a declaration of what is or is not canonical (Lutherans and Anglicans often include in their lectionaries books they do not - do not - DO NOT - regard as canonical, and OFTEN (sometimes every Sunday) things are quoted and used for teaching that are NOT regarded as canonical. The RCC declared it's UNIQUE collection unofficially at the Council at Florence in the 15th Century then to make it official repeated the action at Trent in the 16th Century but this was in the 15th and 16th century and for just ONE denomination (NO OTHER has or ever has agreed with the RCC on this, it hasn't even agreed with itself on this always).... the Reformed Church did the same thing for itself in the 16th Century.... the Anglican Church embraced it's UNIQUE collection in the late 16th Century (which officially has two-tears: canonical and DEUTEROcanonical) and the LDS did this in the 19th Century. But THE CHURCH nev ever has.

this book is no more worthy than the book of mormon?

No one has mentioned what has worth..... LOTS of things have worth that aren't necessarily the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

The point was made that one person seem to use a book and it was CLAIMED this one person saw it as "scripture" (the word means "something written down", all writings were called "scripture"). I simply pointed out this is not so unique. A person opinionating that something in a book or song or movie or historical story has been written or uses such does not prove that The Church has officially, authoritatively declared all things written or all movies or all songs or all illustrations to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. Friend, I'm trying to show you the obvious: the apologetic you are echoing is baseless. I wish you would step back and consider this.





.

 

[atpollard]

So we know for certain that the book of Judith existed and was used by Clement of Rome as an example for women at the church.. We know that the hearers understood who Judith was, we know that it was in the Septuagint/LXX and we know that prior to Jerome the church had it in their bible without the title of "apocrypha", we also know who Clement was, yet this book is no more worthy than the book of mormon?

I never said that the book is no more worthy than the Book of Mormon. There is a wide gap between “Paul’s Letter to the Romans“ and “the Book of Mormon”.

1. Romans is Holy Scripture written by an Apostle appointed by Jesus Christ and the words therein inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. “The Prayer of Jabez“ by David Wilkinson is a modern book written by a Christian to expound on the truths found in scripture, but it is not Holy Scripture.
3. The Histories by Josephus is an ancient book written by a non-Christian that is useful for filling in historic details about the time period covered by Jesus earthly ministry and the early church, but it is not Holy Scripture.
4. The “Book of Mormon” and “Live Your Best Life Now” are books that directly contradict the Holy Scripture with false teachings and are, therefore, less than worthless ... they are harmful.

My only claim for the Book of Judith is that it is not #1 on the list above. I have made no statement on where it falls between #2 and #4. If YOU believe that the Book of Judith falls under #1 and you wish to convince me and others that Judith is Holy Scripture, then the burden is on you to present your case. So far, I just see lots of unproven statement, lots of opinions, and lots of demands to prove your opinions false. Why is it anyone’s job to prove your opinions false.

”All cats go to heaven, but all dogs go to hell”. If nobody can prove my opinion false, does that mean that it must be true? So why don’t you all believe me since none of you can prove that all cats do not go to heaven or that all dogs do not go to hell? That is the same argument that you are making about Clement and Judith ... presenting opinions as facts.

 

[Josiah]

Several years ago..... there was a MEGA Protestant church where I lived. The pastor preached a five sermon series on "The Five Love Languages" (a once uber popular book). Because this pastor used that book as the basis for five sermons (each heard by thousands), does that prove that the whole church catholic authoritatively, officially, declared that "The Five Love Languages" is the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? I say probably not.




.

 

[Josiah]

Rather off topic, I confess....

But we have an Inconvenient Truth (well, for Protestants, anyway)....


Since before Christianity, believers have spoken MUCH of "God's Word" and "God's inscripturated words" Judaism and Christianity are correctly seen as (at least in part) "People of the Book." We are one of 4 world religions were some objective, written words now in some book plays a very important and authoritative role.. Lutherans mention "Scripture" (we mean canonical, inscripturated words of God by that, term actually just means anything written down by anyone for any reason). ALL OVER our Confessions, there is an affirmation of the authority of the CANONICAL books.

But here's the thing.... what IS and is NOT "canonical" is a matter of TRADITION (as our Catholic and Orthodox friends try to tell us). What IS and IS NOT "canonical" (the rule or norm or "measuring tape" for evaluating and forming faith and practice) has NEVER been determined by some ecumenical, authoritative, decisive agency of THE CHURCH. We cannot point to some person for this.... or some ecumenical council (none of them dealt with this) or some Creed. It's TRADITION. It is the result of a GROWING CONSENSUS (never perfect!) of believers.

Yeah, I know.... 92 year old Mrs. Klineburg perhaps taught you in Fifth Grade Sunday School that God sent out this letter to all Christians in 30 AD listing the 66 books to be in all tomes with "BIBLE" written on the cover.... but sorry....with all due respect to Mrs. Klineburg now sainted in heaven.... it just ain't so. And I know Protestants are often told to HATE Tradition an that all Tradition is either Catholic or Satan (and probably both) but our Bible IS a product of Tradition. It's absurd to say "I reject Tradition and accept the Bible instead" (unless God DID send that letter (and it's in a museum somewhere).

Now, for the JEWS, this DID happen. But not before 90 AD, by which time all the Apostles (except perhaps John) had died; the JEWS settled all this - very officially, authoritatively and in a decisive and binding manner - for JUDAISM. It settled on the material that most Christians view as the 39 books of the OT. The 20 or more books that HAD been used and variously embraced that were not accepted by Jamnia in 90 AD all entirely fell from use by the Jews. The issue was settled BY A COUNCIL, by an official, formal, authoritative, binding decision that thus all Jews (then and thereafter) accepted. But this was for JUDAISM. Nothing remotely like that every happened in Christianity.

At one time, LOTS of books were used by Christians, VARIOUSLY embraced by VARIOUS groups of Christians in VARIOUS places). The Revelation of Peter and so many more. It was pretty "loose" with pre-Christian writtings, too (most Christians didn't seem to even know that the JEWS definitively determined on this).

But a CONSENSUS developed. An informal, non-official consensus. It formed round 27 New Covenant/Christian books. This is pretty solid and universal by 400. But not perfect.... the Revelation of John was questioned well into the middle ages.... many Catholic tomes included the Epistle to the Leodiceans as a 28th NT book which was never included in Eastern tomes. Additionally, Christians often considered some of them to be MORE canonical ("spoken in favor") than others ("spoken against"). This informal consensus wasn't perfect but it was strong. By 400 or so, it was pretty much settled. And by 1700, the Epistle to the Leodiceans stopped being included and the DUAL LEVEL (some of higher or lower canonicity) largely was dropped. But this was not until AFTER the Reformation (Luther and Calvin both still embraced the two different levels of canonicity for the NT).

For the OT, there soon developed an embrace a view virtually identical to the definitive declaration of the Jews in 90 AD at Jamnia (although it probably was determined ENTIRELY independent of that Jewish meeting) - all questions of the canonicity of those 39 books was gone by 400 or so. But there were 7-15 or so other books being used. So the consensus was about 39-50 or so pre-Christian books; more solid around the 39 than the others. The same DUAL LEVEL idea that existed for the NT also came to be for the OT only more so; some were spoken of not just as "spoken against" but as DEUTEROcanonical ("deutero" means under, below, secondary). Now, WHICH books are clearly canonical? Those 39. WHICH books are DEUTEROcanonical (useful, helpful but not fully canonical - not to be used as the sole norm for dogma for example)? THERE the consensus was weak and NOT universal. The Oriental Orthodox (rejecting the last 4 Ecumenical Councils) tended to have more DEUTEROcanonical OT books, the Eastern Orthodox fewer and the Roman Church fewer still - there NEVER was ANY consensus on which books are DEUTEROcanonical and which are not. But since no one saw them as fully canonical - the basis for the foundation of dogma - it really wasn't an issue; of all the things the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches FOUGHT over (even excommunicated over!), this was NEVER an issue - even though the 3 DISAGREED with each other on this. Hey, if they are just for reading - no one is against that. If they are NOT to be the basis for dogma - then who cares? There was NO AGREEMENT on what books are and aren't DEUTEROcanonical because, to be blunt, it doesn't matter. LOTS of things are helpful and useful but not the foundation for dogma, heck churches today often use song lyrics, TV shows, movies, popular books, newstories, inspirational tales of saints .... useful, helpful, informative, inspirational, illustrative....but not necessarily the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox should REJOICE in the reality of one of the oldest and strongest and ecumenical of ALL Christian Traditions: What we hold as canonical: It is 66 books (by our count). Yes, there were LOTS of other books used.... generally on a lower level than the 66.... generally NOT viewed as the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice, generally not perhaps the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscriputrated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every sense equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans, but still pious, helpful, informative, inspirational - worthy of reading (even at the Mass; as a part of the Lectionary). We don't have a consensus on that list/number (and we NEVER have had) but this has never been an issue or problem.

In the Reformation, this issue came up: The Reformed community officially embraced Calvin's opinion that only the 66 should be embraced and the others should fade. The Anglican Church accepted a great many beyond the 66 but as DEUTEROcanonical. The Catholic Church at Trent accepted a smaller number than the OOC or EOC or the Anglican Church but IMPLIES they are all equal (this however was not actually stated at Trent but has been the interpretation of it). But the official DENOMINATIONAL tomes of the RCC and Anglican and Reformed (and LDS) churches are all unique, they are not the same as each other.


Sorry.





.

 

[Andrew]

The entire letter is 100% based on biblical passages and characters and nothing but.

It seems that any character standing out that is not found in the Masoretic is the equivalent of something such as "the life of Saint Theresa".. I highly doubt that possibility.

The Jews took Judith out (we'll just use this book as our main "Apocrypha book" for sake of conversation) after the fact that God had established a greek translation of the Hebrew for the gentiles (and greek speaking Jews) by means of His arrangement and sovereignty.

If this is not the case, then the OT was never God inspired until a later council established it so.. I highly doubt that possibility either.

The logical view is not to simply say "well Clement was incorrect" or "flawed", insinuating that his listeners were flawed for not questioning his strange book.. the logical view is to accept that this book was written and added by Jews for no scribe would dare translate any "Apocrypha/secret or hidden" book into the first translation of their Holy books into the popular language at the time.

Why weren't these Jews put to death for translating anything but Holy books into a translation of their Holy books?

Clement of Rome wrote letters before the council of Jamnia because he refers to the Temple in present tense, meaning he was a disciple of the Apostles before 70 AD

Again here is the full letter to Corinth, notice his constant flow of using scripture and quoting from it for his sermon and preaching to a church still in the process of correction

Note: The citations are not his since there was no numbering system obviously, just like marginal notes, something editors later added

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Josiah]

ANDREW: See post 25, 27 and 28

The entire letter is 100% based on biblical passages and characters and nothing but.

So what?

Millions think that the entire Augsburg Confession is 100% based on biblical passages and nothing but.... Millions more think the same of the Westminster Confession... Millions more for the Book of Mormon. But I ask again, so what?

Is your claim that ANYTHING that you think is all correct is THEREFORE been authoritatively, officially, definitively declared by the church - the whole church catholic - to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every way equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Or if anything is used by any Christian, that means THEREFORE the source has been authoritatively, officially, definitively declared by the church - the whole church catholic - to be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in every way equal to the Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?

The Jews took Judith out

Wrong.

The Jews never put it in. The first and ONLY time Judaism ever did ANYTHING in this regard was to put books IN.... that was at the Council of Jamnia in 90AD. Never before did Judaism put anything in or take anything out of anything.



Again, see posts 25, 27 and 28




.

 

[NathanH83]

Here is my final answer (now it is your turn to prove me wrong rather than my responsibility to prove you correct):

1. Clement lived at the same time as Peter and Paul, but Peter and Paul never said anything to Clement.
2. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Peter was to refer to the writings of Paul as scripture.
3. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Paul was that all scripture is God breathed, and Paul was referring to the traditional Orthodox Pharisee definition of scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles.
4. Neither Peter nor Paul ever made any comment on the status of Judith as inspired or non-inspired, so Clement learned NOTHING on the subject from either Apostle.
5. Clement did not actually refer to Judith as scripture; you are reading your beliefs into a general statement that Clement made.
6. ANYONE that claims Judith is ‘God breathed’ and infallible Holy Scripture like Genesis or the Book of Romans is incorrect.

Let me know if I left any of your questions unanswered.

You clearly haven’t read 1 Clement. He clearly refers to Judith as scripture.

 

[Andrew]

@Josiah

Who else but actual Jews translated the Hebrew to Greek (Septuagint/LXX)?

No gentile did this, Judith comes from the Septuagint, the Jews indeed put this in their greek translations, if a translation of the Hebrew is null and void than any English version is likewise null and void.

When Jesus opened up the scroll and read from Isaiah was he quoting Holy scripture or was it still pending to be considered Holy?

 

[atpollard]

You clearly haven’t read 1 Clement. He clearly refers to Judith as scripture.

You clearly have not quoted where Clement refers to Judith as scripture.
You clearly have not comprehended that it is not other people’s responsibility to research your opinions.
You clearly did not understand points #1, #2, #3, #4 or #6 of my response.
Your CLAIMING that Clement refers to Judith as scripture does not prove that Clement did make that claim and that you have not misunderstood what Clement wrote, so you are FAR from refuting #5.

The fact that you disagree with my answer #5 is noted, but so what? You have not even attempted to offer any proof of anything in your response.

 

[atpollard]

You clearly haven’t read 1 Clement. He clearly refers to Judith as scripture.

PS. I have read my Bible and Peter and Paul say NOTHING about Judith.

Here is everything God has to say about “Judith”:

[Gen 26:34-35 NASB] 34 When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35 and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah.

 

[NathanH83]

Here is my final answer (now it is your turn to prove me wrong rather than my responsibility to prove you correct):

1. Clement lived at the same time as Peter and Paul, but Peter and Paul never said anything to Clement.
2. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Peter was to refer to the writings of Paul as scripture.
3. The only statement ever made about what is or is not scripture by Paul was that all scripture is God breathed, and Paul was referring to the traditional Orthodox Pharisee definition of scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles.
4. Neither Peter nor Paul ever made any comment on the status of Judith as inspired or non-inspired, so Clement learned NOTHING on the subject from either Apostle.
5. Clement did not actually refer to Judith as scripture; you are reading your beliefs into a general statement that Clement made.
6. ANYONE that claims Judith is ‘God breathed’ and infallible Holy Scripture like Genesis or the Book of Romans is incorrect.

Let me know if I left any of your questions unanswered.

Clement says in his letter of 1 Clement that he lived the same time as the apostles. But he never claimed to have never spoken to them. But you claim he never spoke to them.

How do you know that?

 

[Andrew]

PS. I have read my Bible and Peter and Paul say NOTHING about Judith.

Here is everything God has to say about “Judith”:

[Gen 26:34-35 NASB] 34 When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35 and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah.

If you were alive the first few centuries you would have been reading Judith along with Genesis and would have no distinction between the two concerning what's scripture and what's not.

You would have been able to go to the library or first century Synagogue and find "and recovery of sight to the blind" in the Hebrew Holy Text in Isaiah, just as Jesus quoted.. but has since mysteriously vanished in our Masoretic yet is found in the Septuagint just as Jesus would have read it.. from an earlier and original Hebrew source other than the Masoretic

Speaking of "recovery of sight to the blind", I wonder why someone would want to take that out, is it because Jesus was healing the blind? Must have been someone who hated those pesky Christians who used this to witness to the Jews the fulfilment concerning Jesus as the Messiah using their own Holy books.

 

[atpollard]

Clement says in his letter of 1 Clement that he lived the same time as the apostles. But he never claimed to have never spoken to them. But you claim he never spoke to them.

How do you know that?

I claim to have lived at the same time and in the same state as Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Art Garfunkel and Donald Trump throughout my life. Does that mean that we should assume that I have spoken with all of them?

It is not for me to prove something never happened.
It is for you to produce ANYTHING that indicates Paul or Peter told Clement anything at all about Judith (or anything else for that matter).

To be blunt, from the Baptist perspective of each local assembly answering to Jesus Christ directly, Clement was playing the part of a bully attempting to force Christians to act contrary to their consciences and just “sit down, shut up and submit to their betters in the elite Priestly Caste hierarchy”. That makes any claims to Apostolic connection very self serving and suspiciously convenient. The actions of the Church in Corinth were none of the business of the Bishop of Rome. Paul appointed Elders in Corinth to deal with Corinth and Clement should have worried about his congregation in Rome more than expanding the personal political power of Bishop of Rome across the empire. It was exactly this attitude that drove the rest of Christendom away from Rome in the Great Schism.

 

[atpollard]

If you were alive the first few centuries you would have been reading Judith along with Genesis and would have no distinction between the two concerning what's scripture and what's not.

1. This statement is false. There was no single compiled Bible but collections of scrolls. The only FOR SURE scripture in EVERY Christian Church would have been a compilation of the 4 Gospels into a single scroll, and a compilation of the letters of Paul (ending with Hebrews) into a single scroll. Every other book would have varied from church to church [I would also have had the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic works to contend with].
2. You have not addressed my point about Peter and Paul discussing the subject of Judith in no other work as an indication that there is no reason to believe that they discussed it with Clement, either.

 

[Andrew]

1. This statement is false. There was no single compiled Bible but collections of scrolls. The only FOR SURE scripture in EVERY Christian Church would have been a compilation of the 4 Gospels into a single scroll, and a compilation of the letters of Paul (ending with Hebrews) into a single scroll. Every other book would have varied from church to church [I would also have had the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic works to contend with].
2. You have not addressed my point about Peter and Paul discussing the subject of Judith in no other work as an indication that there is no reason to believe that they discussed it with Clement, either.

They also didn't discuss Obadiah.. indeed there are several books of the Old Testament that are never mentioned in the New Testament.

Also, the claim that there was no structure of the Old Treatment leaves me to wonder why any books were ever mentioned at all when addressing the churches, did the apostles go around to each church and ask "okay what books do you have so I know which ones I can mention"?

No, the copies of the Septuagint were heavily circulated and copied, there was also a pilgrimage to the very place were the Septuagint was orchestrated where Christians would set up camp and rejoice in the Lord who handed them the Hebrew Holy text in their greek tongue, the greek translations were honored and praised and btw were never refuted by the early Christians.. It's the exact opposite, how else do you expect the first Christians both Jew and Gentile to have access to the Holy text of old in the churches infancy?

In fact, a former Christian who left the church and converted to Judaism named Aquila studied under a Jewish Rabbi named Akiva, and HE made a NEW greek translation to REPLACE all of the original Septuagint copies in all of the greek speaking Synagogues (Hebrew was a very rare language at the time) with his version around the 2nd century sometime... that's how wide spread the Septuagint was.

So it's no wonder Clement would expect the church to understand who Judith was, since it was a well known Hebrew translation of the Holy text family, no more or less inspired than say.. Obadiah!

"Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved. I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."
Philippians 4:1-3

There is no "book of life" handy for us therefore must be just another "book" the bible mentions from time to time

If it's from Heaven well then apparently Clement is written in it, he must have been an important figure, not perfect, but important non the less.. so to say he only gets it right when quoting from any of the 66 books of the protestant bible but wrong when he quotes a so-called "addition" or "Apocrypha", is an absolute assumption based on pure bias IMHO

 

[atpollard]

If it's from Heaven well then apparently Clement is written in it, he must have been an important figure, not perfect, but important non the less.. so to say he only gets it right when quoting from any of the 66 books of the protestant bible but wrong when he quotes a so-called "addition" or "Apocrypha", is an absolute assumption based on pure bias IMHO

Except I never said anything about Clement getting anything “right” or “wrong” since you have yet to actually PROVE (you know, by providing more evidence than your unsupported opinion) that Clement actually even “quoted” from Judith, let alone claimed that Judith is God Breathed Holy Scripture on a par with the writings of Moses or Paul. All that you have actually “proven” is that Clement mentioned Judith (the woman) as an example of someone who loved. It was the translator that claimed it was a reference to the Book of Judith and nowhere in the quoted text was it ever called scripture. Telling me to do your job and go search for proof that Clement called Judith scripture is a silly argument. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PROVE YOUR OPINIONS!