Why do you think that Paul’s direct disciple said that Judith is Sacred Scripture?

[Josiah]

So we should liken the ECF to a small insignificant amount of random free thinking Christians with youtube channels, no matter how many there are they itch the ears of their audience by making stuff up off the top of their heads to sound legit but lacking evidence to their claims.. that's what it seems like

Eusebius is certainly an esteemed individual. And entitled to his opinions. And this individual DOES share his opinion about St. Clement (note: I pointed this out before Nathan did). BUT he is one individual.... he shared no evidence whatsoever or reasons for his opinion... and he was born long after St. Clement of Rome died so he had no possibility of first-hand knowledge. I agreed, it IS possible - certainly so - that he had solid evidence, but Nathan does not. I'm not sure Nathan realizes this, but one individual sharing an opinion is not evidence.

Andrew, truth matters. IF Nathan had said, "We have one esteemed Christian who shared his opinion that St. Clement of Rome was the same man by the same very common name that Paul mentions in Philippians" well, no one would debate that. Of course, Eusebius offers NOTHING to support his opinion... and he was born 166 years AFTER St. Clement died so obviously he had no first-hand knowledge of this. So, does Nathan have evidence for his claim? No. Perhaps because the FIRST INDIVIDUAL known to have this opinion - two CENTURIES after the fact - didn't share any evidence or substantiation or reason for his opinion. I"M the one who noted Nathan's opinion is not original with Nathan... but it is an opinion that has no substantiation. That is what I said.... Nathan has no evidence for his opinion;.

And of course, nor does he have any evidence that St Clement of Rome (who never claimed to have even met St. Paul - much less be some "disciple" of him) believed that the BOOK of Judith is canonical Scripture but then proved he never did. Nathan's SPECULATION is not original..... it can be dated back to the mid Third Century.... but it's NOT Tradition and there is NO evidence to support it. It COULD be (of course) but "could" doesn't equal "fact". And moot since he never said the BOOK of Judith is... anything at all, he never mentioned it.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Yup. Never said otherwise. Indeed, I specifically stated that we have one individual person who shared his opinion that they were the same person.... and offered NOTHING to substantiate or boast that claim. And of course, that one lived LONG after Clement of Rome died and had no way to personally know this. True, it's theoretically possible he had good data on this that we don't have (even perhaps evidence), but IF he did, he didn't share it so that evidence doesn't exist. One person sharing his/her opinion is not evidence; you might not know that (which could explain a lot).

You made a bold claim that you have no evidence for. IF you had said "Clement of Rome was a contemporary of Paul and so it's theoretically possible that "Clement" in Philippians refers to St. Clement of Rome, although "Clement" was a very popular male name and we have no evidence of this" then I'd agree. But that's not what you posted, is it? IF you had posted, "One esteemed man who lived long after St. Clement of Rome believed that he was the same "Clement" mentioned by Paul in the book of Philippians but shared nothing to support that belief" well.... no problem there either, but that's not what you posted, is it? Read what you posted, read the title you gave to the thread.... did you offer any substantiation for it? Nope. But (as I noted long before you did) your OPINION is not original - just unsubstantiated.


See posts 56 and 57.




.

You’re equating Eusebius’ entire volume of church history with nothing more than a mere personal opinion.

So we can’t know anything about history now, because it’s all just a bunch of opinions?

You’ve reduced church history down to just mere opinion.

Why do you think Andrew and I don’t take you seriously? You say things like this.

 

[Josiah]

You’re equating Eusebius’ entire volume of church history with nothing more than a mere personal opinion.

So we can’t know anything about history now, because it’s all just a bunch of opinions?

You’ve reduced church history down to just mere opinion.

Why do you think Andrew and I don’t take you seriously? You say things like this.

To you, the opinion of an individual = dogmatic truth. Evidence is of no value or concern. No wonder you think that because YOU have an opinion, you are thus correct.


Did St. Clement of Rome EVER claim to be a disciple of Paul? Did he EVER claim to have even MET Paul? Did Tradition ever hold that these two men were the same? Nope. I agree - the pure SPECULATION that St. Clement and the guy with the very, very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is a SPECULATION that we can document began with one man about 200 years AFTER St. Clement, but this has never been a general Christian belief or opinion (and still isn't). COULD it be true? Sure.... but COULD is unrelated to IS.

And it's irrelevant. Because, as you yourself proved, St. Clement of Rome never said that the BOOK of Judith is... well... anything at all. Not canonical. Not Deuterocanonical. Not good to read but not normative. Not bad to read. Not doesn't exist. He never mentioned that book AT ALL ... for anything... about anything.... he never gave ANY personal opinion or speculation or wild guess about that book at all - never mentioned it. He spoke of a PERSON named Judith but not a book which some call "Judith." You know that. Everyone knows that. It doesn't matter if a man with the very popular name of "Clement" in Rome in the same man Paul was thinking of when he wrote the Philippians about a man with the same very popular name.



.



.

 

[Andrew]

To you, the opinion of an individual = dogmatic truth. Evidence is of no value or concern. No wonder you think that because YOU have an opinion, you are thus correct.


Did St. Clement of Rome EVER claim to be a disciple of Paul? Did he EVER claim to have even MET Paul? Did Tradition ever hold that these two men were the same? Nope. I agree - the pure SPECULATION that St. Clement and the guy with the very, very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is a SPECULATION that we can document began with one man about 200 years AFTER St. Clement, but this has never been a general Christian belief or opinion (and still isn't). COULD it be true? Sure.... but COULD is unrelated to IS.

And it's irrelevant. Because, as you yourself proved, St. Clement of Rome never said that the BOOK of Judith is... well... anything at all. Not canonical. Not Deuterocanonical. Not good to read but not normative. Not bad to read. Not doesn't exist. He never mentioned that book AT ALL ... for anything... about anything.... he never gave ANY personal opinion or speculation or wild guess about that book at all - never mentioned it. He spoke of a PERSON named Judith but not a book which some call "Judith." You know that. Everyone knows that. It doesn't matter if a man with the very popular name of "Clement" in Rome in the same man Paul was thinking of when he wrote the Philippians about a man with the same very popular name.



.



.

To you, the opinion of Jerome under the influence of unbelieving Jews = dogmatic truth.

To you, the opinion of the protestant owned Bible Societies (your precious "publishing house") in the 1800s = dogmatic truth.

 

[NathanH83]

To you, the opinion of an individual = dogmatic truth. Evidence is of no value or concern. No wonder you think that because YOU have an opinion, you are thus correct.


Did St. Clement of Rome EVER claim to be a disciple of Paul? Did he EVER claim to have even MET Paul? Did Tradition ever hold that these two men were the same? Nope. I agree - the pure SPECULATION that St. Clement and the guy with the very, very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is a SPECULATION that we can document began with one man about 200 years AFTER St. Clement, but this has never been a general Christian belief or opinion (and still isn't). COULD it be true? Sure.... but COULD is unrelated to IS.

And it's irrelevant. Because, as you yourself proved, St. Clement of Rome never said that the BOOK of Judith is... well... anything at all. Not canonical. Not Deuterocanonical. Not good to read but not normative. Not bad to read. Not doesn't exist. He never mentioned that book AT ALL ... for anything... about anything.... he never gave ANY personal opinion or speculation or wild guess about that book at all - never mentioned it. He spoke of a PERSON named Judith but not a book which some call "Judith." You know that. Everyone knows that. It doesn't matter if a man with the very popular name of "Clement" in Rome in the same man Paul was thinking of when he wrote the Philippians about a man with the same very popular name.



.



.

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was to correct and admonish them, not to brag about how much he knew Paul personally. Why would he even bring that up?

The fact that Eusebius said they’re the same person just goes to show that there was probably church tradition in Eusebius’ day that they’re the same person, and also that Eusebius knew of no evidence suggesting that they’re a different person.

So the fact that Eusebius says so confidently that they’re the same person, that actually says A LOT.

Now, if someone like ME says that this is the same Clement, well then of course that doesn’t say allot.

But when someone like Eusebius says it, that DOES say a lot.

Eusebius attended the Council of Nicaea, and would have met HUNDREDS of church leaders from all over Asia, Africa, and Europe, and listened to their discussions and debates. That includes church leaders from Phillipi (to whom the letter of Philippians was written), and also Rome (who Clement was bishop over), and also Corinth (who received his letter).

Certainly history from only 300 years earlier was much better preserved than history from 2,000 years ago.

OF COURSE there’s a very good possibility that it was general knowledge among early church fathers that this is the same Clement.

The fact that Eusebius says it so confidently says A LOT.

 

[Josiah]

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was to correct and admonish them, not to brag about how much he knew Paul personally. Why would he even bring that up?

NOWHERE does Clement of Rome say he was a disciple of Paul... or ever even met Paul.

You said that St. Clement of Rome was a direct disciple of St. Paul and the man he referred to in Philippians - but you offered NOTHING to support your claim (you never do - I wonder if truth matters at all to you). Yes, one person about 200 years later also speculated they were the same person (you didn't invent this claim) but he offered NOTHING to support the opinion - no evidence, nothing at all. IF he had it, he didn't share it and we don't have it. You have a claim. I noted you have no evidence... and you've proven I'm correct. I'm beginning to realize something important about you: Your foundational belief is that is a person (especially you) has a speculation, ergo it's true. You should reconsider that.


As you have proven, you have NOTHING to support your claim that St. Clement is the "Clement" Paul mentions in Philippians. Nothing. Indeed, it seems problematic that St. Clement never said a word about even meeting Paul.

As you have proven, St. Clement said nothing about the Book of Judith... and certainly never stated that in his own personal and individual opinion, this book is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and there must be an international law requiring all publishing houses to only marked Bibles that contain that book. It wouldn't matter if you could prove Jesus Himself wrote the Book of First Clement.... that Book says NOTHING about the book of Judith - as you yourself chose to prove.




.

 

[NathanH83]

NOWHERE does Clement of Rome say he was a disciple of Paul... or ever even met Paul.

You said that St. Clement of Rome was a direct disciple of St. Paul and the man he referred to in Philippians - but you offered NOTHING to support your claim (you never do - I wonder if truth matters at all to you). Yes, one person about 200 years later also speculated they were the same person (you didn't invent this claim) but he offered NOTHING to support the opinion - no evidence, nothing at all. IF he had it, he didn't share it and we don't have it. You have a claim. I noted you have no evidence... and you've proven I'm correct. I'm beginning to realize something important about you: Your foundational belief is that is a person (especially you) has a speculation, ergo it's true. You should reconsider that.


As you have proven, you have NOTHING to support your claim that St. Clement is the "Clement" Paul mentions in Philippians. Nothing. Indeed, it seems problematic that St. Clement never said a word about even meeting Paul.

As you have proven, St. Clement said nothing about the Book of Judith... and certainly never stated that in his own personal and individual opinion, this book is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and there must be an international law requiring all publishing houses to only marked Bibles that contain that book. It wouldn't matter if you could prove Jesus Himself wrote the Book of First Clement.... that Book says NOTHING about the book of Judith - as you yourself chose to prove.




.

I don’t get what your point is. Are you trying to say that Paul was disobedient?

Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations. What do you think Paul was doing in all these different cities? When he went to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Phillipi, Ephesus, ect., what was he doing? He was making disciples, as Jesus commanded.

Paul mentions Clement by name because he knew him. What on Earth makes you think he was NOT discipling these people whom he knew?

What? He was just big into making lots if friends?

The command was to MAKE DISCIPLES!

That’s what he did.

Ok, so MAYBE another one of the Apostles discipled Clement, and Paul just knew him. So what?

The point is, Clement was either discipled by one of the very apostles themselves, OR Clement was discipled by someone who was directly discipled by one of the apostles themselves.

Either way, Clement had at least SOME affiliation with Paul, since they knew each other. Certainly Paul influenced him directly in some way, and Clement probably listened to Paul preach for hours into the night (and some people probably got tired and fell asleep, like the guy who fell through the window).

So the fact that Clement references Judith the way that he does, this should cause any reasonable person to believe that Paul held Judith with the same kind of respect that Clement does in his letter.

Also, Clement expected the Corinthians to be deeply versed in the book of Judith as well. Didn’t Paul write 2 big letters to the Corinthians? Where did Clement get the idea that the Corinthians accepted Judith?

1 + 1 = 2

 

[Josiah]

I don’t get what your point is.

I'm very confident you would if you'd read the posts;. I know... you've repeatedly said you don't read what is posted. That could be why you don't get the points raised to you?


It's really simply, my brother. In this thread, you made two bold claims. Both BASELESS.

1. That St. Clement of Rome was a "direct disciple of St. Paul." Now, perhaps you think that truth is irrelevant... or that if you speculate something, ergo it is a dogmatic fact. But you offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to substantiate your claim. You didn't even try (you very rarely do). All you could do is echo a point I already made: This speculation is not entirely original with you, about 200 years after St. Clement died, a man speculated that St. Clement of Rome and the "Clement" that is spoken of in Philippians are the same person ("Clement" being a very common name at the time). But that guy offered NO EVIDENCE - just his personal opinion that they were the same "Clement". And you offered NO EVIDENCE - just your personal opinion. Now again, you may hold that the personal opinion of a person is the equal of dogmatic fact (IF you happen to agree with it, otherwise not) but this simply isn't true. Here again, yet again, you did "MO" - make a bold claim and then show you have NOTHING to substantiate it as true - and you could not care less, you don't give a rip if it's true only if it's your opinion. You made a baseless claim. Again.


2. That St; Clement personally states that the BOOK of Judith is sacred Scripture. But as you sometimes do (and it's very curious!), you yourself proved that's a lie. He never so much as even MENTIONS the Book of Judith - "in the same breath" as anything. He mentions the PERSON of Judith but not the BOOK of Judith. You simply stated an obvious falsehood. Again. And because you have made it crystal clear you don't give a rip what anyone in the Early Church actually stated was Scripture.... we've shown leading ECF's actually stating that a BOOK is "Sacred Scripture" and "canonical" and you don't care, it doesn't matter what ANYONE says about this - in spite of being a leading, esteem Father and actually, verbatim STATING it.... what people thought and believed is of ZERO importance to you. So why it would matter what Clement said is beyond everyone here since you hold that doesn't matter - at all, not a bit. But the reality is: Clement said NOTHING about the Book of Judith.... as you yourself chose to prove. You do that a lot;.... shoot yourself in the foot, proving yourself wrong rather than providing evidence that you are right.

Paul mentions Clement by name because he knew him.

We don't know the identity of the "Clement" he mentions in Philippians.

And... NOWHERE does St. Clement of Rome ever indicate that he knew Paul, that he ever met Paul, that he ever saw Paul. Odd if he had the credentials you claim he had. Yes, centuries later, some SPECULATED that St. Clement is the same "Clement" but even they didn't speculate that he was a disciple of Paul's.

And again, SO WHAT? You don't care what Church Father's believed about what is Scripture. You entirely ignore it and don't even regard such as worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Clement of Alexandra,,,, Cyprian of Carthage.... Origen.... more ... you ignore them all, their views matter not a bit.... why? I suspect because their CLEAR, VERBATIM endorsement of books "AS SACRED SCRIPTURE" doens't agree with you. Well... you can't have it both ways.... a ECF is authoritative if he agrees with you and is irrelevant if he does not. And of course St. Clement said NOTHING about the Book of Judith as you went to some length to prove.





.

 

[NathanH83]

I'm very confident you would if you'd read the posts;. I know... you've repeatedly said you don't read what is posted. That could be why you don't get the points raised to you?


It's really simply, my brother. In this thread, you made two bold claims. Both BASELESS.

1. That St. Clement of Rome was a "direct disciple of St. Paul." Now, perhaps you think that truth is irrelevant... or that if you speculate something, ergo it is a dogmatic fact. But you offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to substantiate your claim. You didn't even try (you very rarely do). All you could do is echo a point I already made: This speculation is not entirely original with you, about 200 years after St. Clement died, a man speculated that St. Clement of Rome and the "Clement" that is spoken of in Philippians are the same person ("Clement" being a very common name at the time). But that guy offered NO EVIDENCE - just his personal opinion that they were the same "Clement". And you offered NO EVIDENCE - just your personal opinion. Now again, you may hold that the personal opinion of a person is the equal of dogmatic fact (IF you happen to agree with it, otherwise not) but this simply isn't true. Here again, yet again, you did "MO" - make a bold claim and then show you have NOTHING to substantiate it as true - and you could not care less, you don't give a rip if it's true only if it's your opinion. You made a baseless claim. Again.


2. That St; Clement personally states that the BOOK of Judith is sacred Scripture. But as you sometimes do (and it's very curious!), you yourself proved that's a lie. He never so much as even MENTIONS the Book of Judith - "in the same breath" as anything. He mentions the PERSON of Judith but not the BOOK of Judith. You simply stated an obvious falsehood. Again. And because you have made it crystal clear you don't give a rip what anyone in the Early Church actually stated was Scripture.... we've shown leading ECF's actually stating that a BOOK is "Sacred Scripture" and "canonical" and you don't care, it doesn't matter what ANYONE says about this - in spite of being a leading, esteem Father and actually, verbatim STATING it.... what people thought and believed is of ZERO importance to you. So why it would matter what Clement said is beyond everyone here since you hold that doesn't matter - at all, not a bit. But the reality is: Clement said NOTHING about the Book of Judith.... as you yourself chose to prove. You do that a lot;.... shoot yourself in the foot, proving yourself wrong rather than providing evidence that you are right.








We don't know the identity of the "Clement" he mentions in Philippians.

And... NOWHERE does St. Clement of Rome ever indicate that he knew Paul, that he ever met Paul, that he ever saw Paul. Odd if he had the credentials you claim he had. Yes, centuries later, some SPECULATED that St. Clement is the same "Clement" but even they didn't speculate that he was a disciple of Paul's.

And again, SO WHAT? You don't care what Church Father's believed about what is Scripture. You entirely ignore it and don't even regard such as worthy of any consideration whatsoever. Clement of Alexandra,,,, Cyprian of Carthage.... Origen.... more ... you ignore them all, their views matter not a bit.... why? I suspect because their CLEAR, VERBATIM endorsement of books "AS SACRED SCRIPTURE" doens't agree with you. Well... you can't have it both ways.... a ECF is authoritative if he agrees with you and is irrelevant if he does not. And of course St. Clement said NOTHING about the Book of Judith as you went to some length to prove.





.

And that’s supposed to be a convincing argument? That Clement mentions Judith the person, but never mentions the BOOK of Judith?

I’m supposed to be convinced by that argument?

 

[Josiah]

Clement mentions Judith the person, but never mentions the BOOK of Judith?

As you proved. Of course, you claimed he was mentioned the BOOK with that moniker not a person, but y0u proved yourself to be wrong.

You also claimed that the man with the very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is the very same man as Pope Clement 1, the Bishop of Rome. It's just you offered NOTHING to substantiate this claim. Nothing. You did not that two centuries later, a man also so speculated but also didn't offer anything to substantiate that feeling. But that man didn't claim he was a disciple of Paul or that Paul must have taught Pope Clement 1 that Judith must be required by law to appear in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover....

I’m supposed to be convinced by that argument?

My "argument" is simply the obvious notation that you offered NOTHING to support your speculation.... about folks with the name of Clement or about the book of Judith.



.

 

[NathanH83]

As you proved. Of course, you claimed he was mentioned the BOOK with that moniker not a person, but y0u proved yourself to be wrong.

You also claimed that the man with the very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is the very same man as Pope Clement 1, the Bishop of Rome. It's just you offered NOTHING to substantiate this claim. Nothing. You did not that two centuries later, a man also so speculated but also didn't offer anything to substantiate that feeling. But that man didn't claim he was a disciple of Paul or that Paul must have taught Pope Clement 1 that Judith must be required by law to appear in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover....






My "argument" is simply the obvious notation that you offered NOTHING to support your speculation.... about folks with the name of Clement or about the book of Judith.



.

You’re not very persuasive. Your argument doesn’t even make any logical sense. There’s no other book that talks about Judith.

 

[NathanH83]

As you proved. Of course, you claimed he was mentioned the BOOK with that moniker not a person, but y0u proved yourself to be wrong.

You also claimed that the man with the very popular name of "Clement" that Paul mentions in Philippians is the very same man as Pope Clement 1, the Bishop of Rome. It's just you offered NOTHING to substantiate this claim. Nothing. You did not that two centuries later, a man also so speculated but also didn't offer anything to substantiate that feeling. But that man didn't claim he was a disciple of Paul or that Paul must have taught Pope Clement 1 that Judith must be required by law to appear in any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover....






My "argument" is simply the obvious notation that you offered NOTHING to support your speculation.... about folks with the name of Clement or about the book of Judith.



.

But what about Eusebius though?

 

[Josiah]

But what about Eusebius though?

Read what I posted.

You made two claims.... you gave no evidence for either, and you don't care. This is typical.


.

 

[NathanH83]

Read what I posted.

You made two claims.... you gave no evidence for either, and you don't care. This is typical.


.

Do you agree with Eusebius or disagree?

 

[Josiah]

Do you agree with Eusebius or disagree?

They offered no evidence. Just as you have not. You gave an OPINION (one not entirely your own invention) but no evidence, no substantiation. I suspect to you, your speculation IS the definition of truth and/or that you are infallible and thus exempt from any need for substantiation and thus exempt from any accountability.


You made two claims.

1. The Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually St. Clement of Rome (Clement being a very popular name at the time). Indeed, you called him a "disciple of Paul." But you offered NOTHING to support your claim.... I told you that a couple of centuries later, one person made a similar speculation but also offered no evidence to support it. You obviously have no evidence... you just seem to hold that you don't need no evidence cuz you are you.

2. That St Clement of Rome states that the Book of Judith is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Then you proved he said no such thing. You proved he never mentioned the book of Judith at all. Thus you didn't even TRY to substantiate your claim but actually proved it to be wrong, a lie.

This is what you've been doing since he came to this site over a year ago, in thread after thread, post after post. Claims.... never substantiated. And when those claims have been corrected or challenged, you just ignore it because, well, your speculations are just exempt from truthfulness.




.

 

[NathanH83]

They offered no evidence. Just as you have not. You gave an OPINION (one not entirely your own invention) but no evidence, no substantiation. I suspect to you, your speculation IS the definition of truth and/or that you are infallible and thus exempt from any need for substantiation and thus exempt from any accountability.


You made two claims.

1. The Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually St. Clement of Rome (Clement being a very popular name at the time). Indeed, you called him a "disciple of Paul." But you offered NOTHING to support your claim.... I told you that a couple of centuries later, one person made a similar speculation but also offered no evidence to support it. You obviously have no evidence... you just seem to hold that you don't need no evidence cuz you are you.

2. That St Clement of Rome states that the Book of Judith is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Then you proved he said no such thing. You proved he never mentioned the book of Judith at all. Thus you didn't even TRY to substantiate your claim but actually proved it to be wrong, a lie.

This is what you've been doing since he came to this site over a year ago, in thread after thread, post after post. Claims.... never substantiated. And when those claims have been corrected or challenged, you just ignore it because, well, your speculations are just exempt from truthfulness.




.

What about Clement of Rome?
What about when he mentions Judith?
What about when he precedes it with Sacred Scripture?
What about mentioning her alongside Esther??
What about Eusebius?
What about Phillipians 4:3?
What about the gas station?

 

[Josiah]

What about Clement of Rome?
What about when he mentions Judith?
What about when he precedes it with Sacred Scripture?
What about mentioning her alongside Esther??
What about Eusebius?
What about Phillipians 4:3?
What about the gas station?

Questions are not evidence.


You made two claims.

1. The Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually St. Clement of Rome (Clement being a very popular name at the time). Indeed, you called him a "direct disciple of Paul." But you have offered NOTHING to support your claim.... Nothing. I told you that a couple of centuries later, one individual person made a similar speculation (although nothing about "direct disciple") but also offered no evidence to support it. You obviously have no evidence... you just seem to hold that you don't need no evidence cuz you are you.

2. That St Clement of Rome states that the Book of Judith is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Then you proved he said no such thing. You proved he never mentioned the book of Judith at all. Thus you didn't even TRY to substantiate your claim but actually proved it to be wrong, a lie.

This is what you've been doing since he came to this site over a year ago, in thread after thread, post after post. Claims.... never substantiated. Claims with no evidence. And when those claims have been corrected or challenged, you just ignore it because that's what you must do. Claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... On and on and on and on and on and on.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Questions are not evidence.


You made two claims.

1. The Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually St. Clement of Rome (Clement being a very popular name at the time). Indeed, you called him a "direct disciple of Paul." But you have offered NOTHING to support your claim.... Nothing. I told you that a couple of centuries later, one individual person made a similar speculation (although nothing about "direct disciple") but also offered no evidence to support it. You obviously have no evidence... you just seem to hold that you don't need no evidence cuz you are you.

2. That St Clement of Rome states that the Book of Judith is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Then you proved he said no such thing. You proved he never mentioned the book of Judith at all. Thus you didn't even TRY to substantiate your claim but actually proved it to be wrong, a lie.

This is what you've been doing since he came to this site over a year ago, in thread after thread, post after post. Claims.... never substantiated. Claims with no evidence. And when those claims have been corrected or challenged, you just ignore it because that's what you must do. Claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... On and on and on and on and on and on.




.

Your arguments are not convincing.

You claim that Eusebius was just speculating that it was the same Clement. But you have provided no evidence that Eusebius was just speculating. Truth is, Eusebius got his information from historical documents that no longer exists today.

You claim that Clement never mentioned the book of Judith. Nonsense. Clement mentions Judith and Holofernes. Where did he get his info if not from the book of Judith? You have provided no evidence that there is another historical source that mentions the story of Judith and Holofernes other than the book of Judith itself, the same book of Judith which the early church councils declared to be canonical scripture just a few decades after Eusebius.

The fact that you have to resort to such pathetic arguments just goes to show that you really have no argument. You’re just grasping for straws.

You really have not presented a convincing case.

I’ll agree with the early church.

 

[Josiah]

Your arguments are not convincing.

You claim that Eusebius was just speculating that it was the same Clement.

It would help a lot if you actually READ what people post.....

What I stated is that you made a CLAIM that the man with the very common name of Clement that Paul mentions in Philippians is the very same man with that common name known as St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope) and that St. Clement was a "direct disciple" of St. Paul. It's a claim you've not even attempted to verify, you've done nothing to substantiate it as true (as you almost never do), you just equate your claims with truth as if whatever you say ergo must be absolute truth and thus exempt from any accountability cuz you are you.

Yes, as I TOLD YOU, the opinion that they were the same person is not original with you, there was a man who lived nearly two centuries LATER also with that opinion - but he too offered NOTHING to support the opinion. Finding 2 or 3 people who share the same opinion is not proof of it's truthfulness and reality (you can find 2 or 3 who think that St. Mary could fly).

You made that claim.... you've offered NOTHING to show it's true. This is just what you do. Over and over and over and and over.... in thread after thread.... in post after post.....


You furthermore claimed that St. Clement of Rome stated that the BOOK of Judith is fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words... and again, NOTHING. In fact, you actually proved he did not and that your claim is a false.

You claim that Clement never mentioned the book of Judith. Nonsense. Clement mentions Judith.

You yourself proved St. Clement never mention the book of Judith. He mentioned a lady named Judith but not a book. As you yourself proved, he is obviously speaking of a PERSON, not a book. If I mentioned my neighbor Matthew, that does not mean I am speaking of a book which has the common moniker of Matthew, it's pretty obvious I'm speaking of a person. Think.


You really have not presented a convincing case. Actually, no case at all. You just endlessly repeat empty, baseless claims.... or worse, claims you yourself prove wrong.

I’ll agree with the early church.

Here you go again.

As you've been proving for over a year now, you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER from the early church on this subject. NOTHING. There are a FEW individual Christians with OPINIONS about what is and is not fully canonical Scripture but NOTHING - not one word - from the Early Church. The ONLY statement from the Early Church is recorded in Acts Chapter 15 (and that's debatable). Then AFTER that period, we have another, a second (or perhaps first) in 325 at Nicea and then six more (all well past "the early church"), the last around 800 AD, but NONE of these said ANYTHING about what is or is not divine Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. NOTHING. You know that. We all know that. But you don't seem to give a rip about truth, just an enormous love of repeating your baseless claims. Ad nausium. We all KNOW - IF you had some authoritative statement from some Ruling Body of All Christianity between 33-311 on this, you would have quoted it, but you can't and we all know why. Again, we have a FEW individuals with opinions (holding that The Didache is such Scripture, that the Shepherd of Hermas is such Scripture, that the Epistle of Barnabus is Scripture, etc but you insist what individuals hold on this is irrelevant and to be dismissed) but NOTHING from the early church. We have perhaps 3 regional, non-binding, non-authoritative meetings of a diocese but a diocese speaking is not the early church speaking, as you know. I could quote a resolition of the 2019 Convention of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod but that would be entirely unrelated to The Modern Church declaring something. Obvoiusly. Think.

You really have not presented a convincing case. Actually, no case at all. You just endlessly repeat empty, baseless claims.... or worse, claims you yourself prove wrong.



.

 

[NathanH83]

It would help a lot if you actually READ what people post.....

What I stated is that you made a CLAIM that the man with the very common name of Clement that Paul mentions in Philippians is the very same man with that common name known as St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope) and that St. Clement was a "direct disciple" of St. Paul. It's a claim you've not even attempted to verify, you've done nothing to substantiate it as true (as you almost never do), you just equate your claims with truth as if whatever you say ergo must be absolute truth and thus exempt from any accountability cuz you are you.

Yes, as I TOLD YOU, the opinion that they were the same person is not original with you, there was a man who lived nearly two centuries LATER also with that opinion - but he too offered NOTHING to support the opinion. Finding 2 or 3 people who share the same opinion is not proof of it's truthfulness and reality (you can find 2 or 3 who think that St. Mary could fly).

You made that claim.... you've offered NOTHING to show it's true. This is just what you do. Over and over and over and and over.... in thread after thread.... in post after post.....


You furthermore claimed that St. Clement of Rome stated that the BOOK of Judith is fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inscripturated words... and again, NOTHING. In fact, you actually proved he did not and that your claim is a false.





You yourself proved St. Clement never mention the book of Judith. He mentioned a lady named Judith but not a book. As you yourself proved, he is obviously speaking of a PERSON, not a book. If I mentioned my neighbor Matthew, that does not mean I am speaking of a book which has the common moniker of Matthew, it's pretty obvious I'm speaking of a person. Think.


You really have not presented a convincing case. Actually, no case at all. You just endlessly repeat empty, baseless claims.... or worse, claims you yourself prove wrong.






Here you go again.

As you've been proving for over a year now, you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER from the early church on this subject. NOTHING. There are a FEW individual Christians with OPINIONS about what is and is not fully canonical Scripture but NOTHING - not one word - from the Early Church. The ONLY statement from the Early Church is recorded in Acts Chapter 15 (and that's debatable). Then AFTER that period, we have another, a second (or perhaps first) in 325 at Nicea and then six more (all well past "the early church"), the last around 800 AD, but NONE of these said ANYTHING about what is or is not divine Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. NOTHING. You know that. We all know that. But you don't seem to give a rip about truth, just an enormous love of repeating your baseless claims. Ad nausium. We all KNOW - IF you had some authoritative statement from some Ruling Body of All Christianity between 33-311 on this, you would have quoted it, but you can't and we all know why. Again, we have a FEW individuals with opinions (holding that The Didache is such Scripture, that the Shepherd of Hermas is such Scripture, that the Epistle of Barnabus is Scripture, etc but you insist what individuals hold on this is irrelevant and to be dismissed) but NOTHING from the early church. We have perhaps 3 regional, non-binding, non-authoritative meetings of a diocese but a diocese speaking is not the early church speaking, as you know. I could quote a resolition of the 2019 Convention of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod but that would be entirely unrelated to The Modern Church declaring something. Obvoiusly. Think.

You really have not presented a convincing case. Actually, no case at all. You just endlessly repeat empty, baseless claims.... or worse, claims you yourself prove wrong.



.

Do you actually expect to convince any rational person of these weak and pathetic arguments?

When Jesus mentioned Jonah in Matthew 12, he only mentioned the PERSON Jonah, not the BOOK Jonah. THUS, by your logic, Jesus provided no verification for the book of Jonah, simply because he didn’t say “THE BOOK OF JONAH”.

What rational, sane, logical person would find any sense to that statement? What kind of argument is that even?

Then you say I’ve provided NOTHING to substantiate the claim that the Clement in Philippians 4:3 is the same one from 1 Clement.

Uh…I’ve provided nothing?

Excuse me? I’ve provided a very well respected church historian named Eusebius.

Do you know what it even means to be a “church historian”? It means you write a book containing real church history which you’ve verified to be true.

Eusebius only lived a few centuries after the time of Clement. You really think Eusebius couldn’t verify that it was the same Clement before writing it in his history book?

Eusebius wrote a HISTORY book, not an OPINION book. If it wasn’t actual history, then he wouldn’t have said it.

Eusebius met church leaders from all over the world at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. You don’t think he could have verified that it’s the same Clement? He would have met church leaders from Rome, Corinth, and Phillipi.

Clement was very popular, and considered one of the first popes. But you think nobody knew anything about him?

The letter of 1 Clement was so popular, some people even included it in their New Testament.

You really think that with someone as famous as Clement, nobody would have a clue if he was the same guy as the one mentioned in Phillipians? Nobody knew? Eusebius couldn’t verify that with anyone? He couldn’t verify that with the church leaders of Rome, or Corinth, or Phillipi?

I mean, seriously. Do you even know how history works? Do you know how people verify history?

Your arguments are so weak and lame. How do you actually expect to convince anyone of what you’re saying?

Here we have Clement, a church leader in the 1st century, who is of the FIRST generation of Christians, who Paul knew personally and mentioned by name. And Clement references both the book of Judith and the Wisdom of Solomon as scripture.

Any sane, rational person would, and SHOULD conclude that Clement accepted them as scripture, BECAUSE Paul accepted them too.

If you don’t think that’s a logical and rational conclusion, then you are not being logical and rational.