Search results

I have and you are wrong. Clement no where claims that everything he wrote came from the Scriptures. In fact we know it didn't. He simply acknowledges that his readers to be well versed in those writings. He states: "we are writing to persons who are... ...deeply versed in the writings." That...

There is no doubt about that and he just proved it. This is also a problem he has when quoting sources.

Try actually reading what he wrote. That is not what @Josiah said. He said "the first time this guess was made was more than a century after these men died."

As usual your claim goes FAR BEYOND what the text actually states. Clement does not call them "the writings that contain God’s revelatory education." Rather he simply acknowledges that his readers to be well versed in those writings. He states: "we are writing to persons who are believers and...

Let's discuss the above comment. In Philippians 4:3 Paul refers to that Clement as a "fellow worker." Paul NEVER claims Clement was directly discipled by him.

Wrong. He mentions Sacred Scripture and THEN DIRECTLY QUOTES from Deuteronomy 9 and Exodus 32, not Judith. After that, two chapters latter, he mention the person Judith. Chapter 53 "For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of...

You have made an excellent observation. Immediately after the phrase "the sacred scriptures" 1st Clement references Moses and then quotes from Deuteronomy 9 and Exodus 32. In 1 Clement 53:1-5 states: "For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into...

You know the answer to that question. I would like to know the names of these Latin Bibles from the first four centuries that you claimed where FOUND. Such a discovery would be a very important find. I have no doubt it is for you, however I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim...

Don't care. I care about the accuracy and honesty of your claim. You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries. If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know...

You said: You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries. If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know. UNLESS your claim is false and you made it up on the...

Some think it does while others do not. It does not matter what I believe on the matter. What matters is the objective evidence, or in your case the complete lack of objective evidence.

I have made it clear more than once. You stated: You said these Latin "Bibles HAVE BEEN FOUND" and that they date from the first four centuries. If they have indeed been found as you claimed then you ought to have no problem furnishing that information since you should know. UNLESS your...

I never said it didn't. I wanted you to support your claim with evidence concerning the Old Latin manuscripts. Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts YOU claim that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

🥱

Wrong on both points. I am not trying to change the subject. It was YOU first brought it up not me. Way back in post 39 you stated: It was only after that I posted anything on this matter. Then YOU in post 51 stated: It was you who first made the claim, and you have made that claim more...

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries.

First, Origen was dead somewhere in the neighborhood 40 years before Athanasius was born. So that is no help to you and your claim is clearly false based on that fact alone. Second, unless you have some evidence to overturn those scholars and historians who agree on this matter, I see no...

Your comments are both misleading and inaccurate. First, Melito's list is the earliest list, but Athanasius' list is not. Origen's list has the book of Esther and it is dated ca. A.D. 220-240, and Cyril of Jerusalem list is dated ca. 350 and it also includes Esther. Second, your claim that...

You have zero objective evidence. There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place...

Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries. Your claimed: Provide the names of these Old Latin manuscripts that contain Tobit from the first four centuries. So you admit you made claims for which you have zero evidence. I wholeheartedly...