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

[NathanH83]

At least you admit you don't read what others post.... but others do and so know that I never said that Paul and St. Clement were not contemporaries. You simply have no clue what others say because you don't know what they say (or care). Others know that what I said is the the first one to speculate that the "Clement" spoken of in Philippians is St. Clement of Rome could have been the same guy did so about a century AFTER St. Clement's death and he knew neither.... the next single case of such a speculation is a century after that. I simply noted that your guess is not completely new but is unfounded.....

But the point is not important since you yourself proved that First Clement never remotely says that the Book of Judith is "Sacred Scripture." You went to some lengths to prove your whole weird claim is false. I can understand why you don't read what others say to you (might show you are wrong) but it's just so odd that you don't even read what YOU post.... evident here or you would know that video doesn't prove that St. Clement is the man mentioned in Philippians OR that the Book of Judith is Scripture or that the Book of Judith is "on the same level" as anything.






.

Let me explain this in chronological order:

1. Clement starts out saying he is going to CALL TO REMEMBRANCE some things from SACRED SCRIPTURE.

2. Then he goes on to talk about Moses for quite some time.
Then he briefly mentions Judith, and then Esther.

3. Then AFTER saying these things, Clement then repeats the fact that he just RECALLED TO THEIR MEMORY the examples of our forbears MENTIONED ABOVE, from the WRITINGS THAT CONTAIN GOD’S REVELATORY EDUCATION.


Clement mentioned that the examples he gave of Moses, Judith, and Esther all come from sacred scripture.

I read the whole entire book of 1 Clement.
Sounds to me that you didn’t read the whole thing, and so you’re not understanding it in context.

And yes, Judith and Esther are both mentioned RIGHT NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER.

 

[NathanH83]

+ The Clement who wrote the epistle NEVER mentions knowing Paul or even meeting him. odd since it would give him credence.



.

Clement specifically says in his letter that Peter and Paul lived IN OUR OWN GENERATION:

“But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors, and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.”
-1 Clement
Chapter 5

 

[NathanH83]

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 highly distinguished and deeply versed in the writings." That is it. Your claim stretches the limits of credibility.

I have 1 Clement in writing.
I own an actual physical book that contains the letter of 1 Clement.
I took a picture of it.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF!

 

[NathanH83]

Notice how he even says after this, that we should “adhere to so many and such notable examples.”

What notable examples??

The examples of Moses, Judith and Esther!
That’s who!

CONTEXT!!

 

[NathanH83]

Oh, this is interesting too.

In the same book that contains the letter of 1 Clement, it also has a letter written by Ignatius. He also mentions Judith:

“Let not the widows be wanderers about, nor fond of dainties, nor gadders from house to house; but let them be like Judith, noted for her seriousness; and like Anna, eminent for her sobriety.”
-“THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS” (Chapter 5)

Notice how he mentions Judith in the same breath as he mentions Anna.
Anna is the woman who was the prophetess who constantly prayed in the temple and met the baby Jesus, as we read about in the gospel of Luke.

Ignatius was also born in 35 AD, and would have been a contemporary with Paul for about 30 years.

And this isn’t evidence that the Jews at that time accepted Judith as scripture???

 

[NathanH83]

So both Clement and Ignatius, contemporaries of Paul, are saying that we should learn from the example of Judith.

 

[Josiah]

Clement specifically says in his letter that Peter and Paul lived IN OUR OWN GENERATION

Yup. He never says that he knew Paul (or ever seen saw him).... He never says he is the man Paul speaks of in Philippians.

Yes, the "Clement" to which Paul speaks.... and the "Clement" who wrote a letter.... were contemporaries. No one has ever denied that. But that does NOT make them the same person. There's no basis in your assumption that only one man in the first century had the name "Clement." My former Catholic priest's name was Joseph. The first name of the president of the USA is Joseph. They are about the same age; contemporaries. It's silly to assume they are the same person. Just silly.

And again, Clement of Rome NEVER says he was a disciple of Paul or knew Paul or ever once even saw him from a distance.

And the first time ANY ONE, even one person, speculated that they might have been the same person lived a century after them and knew neither and so had no way to know if they were the same guy. A century later still, another person so speculates. But neither presented ANYTHING to substantiate their guess. COULD they have been the same? Sure, but your claim is not that they COULD be but that they were. I simply noted that that's an entirely unsubstantiated speculation on your part (which I admit is better than most of what you claim).



.

 

[Josiah]

So both Clement and Ignatius, contemporaries of Paul, are saying that we should learn from the example of Judith.

Perhaps....

I think many today would say we can learn from the example of Mother Teresa, even (maybe especially) contemporaries of her suggest that. A lot more than two suggest that. But brother, that's not the same thing as insisting that a book with the moniker of "THERESA" ergo is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be legally mandated in every country to appear in any tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.

And if they suggested that St. Francis is a good example TOO that would not mean that ERGO St. Teresa and St. Francis are EQUALS and any book with the name "FRANCIS" in the moniker is thus equal to any book with "THERESA" appearing on the cover.


And your claim is that the Clement spoken of by Paul and the Clement who wrote a letter are the same guy.... of course, you've offered NOTHING that substantiates that, only that since lots of people had that name, it's a possibility (a point no one disputes). And that this Clement friend of Paul says that the BOOK of Judith is Holy Scripture (NOT that Judith the person is a good example) but you proved that's not true. Now... I don't dispute that it's POSSIBLE that Clement of Rome considered Judith to be Scripture, could be, I have nothing to prove he did not. Of course, lots of esteemed Church Fathers also considered the Didache to be Scripture, the Epistle of Barnabas to be Scripture, the Shepherd of Hermas to be Scripture but you don't give a rip what early Christians thought or considered to be Scripture so I'm at a loss to know why you care what Clement of Rome thought.... EVEN IF you could show that he did so consider that book, which OBVIOUSLY you cannot.





.

 

[NathanH83]

And that this Clement friend of Paul says that the BOOK of Judith is Holy Scripture (NOT that Judith the person is a good example) but you proved that's not true.
.

So what have we got here?

We've got Clement and Ignatius, two men who were a part of the very first generation of Christians, who lived the same time as Paul for about 30 years, and they both referenced Judith right alongside Esther and Anna, in a way that makes it sound like they accepted Judith as a part of Biblical scripture. Any reasonable person can see that.

And what have you got to say in response?

You say, "Oh, they were just referencing the PERSON Judith, not the BOOK of Judith!"

Really? That's your only comeback?

Good grief. You got nothing.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe Peter was speaking of a different Paul in his 2nd epistle, maybe Peter is a different Peter all together, perhaps the book of James wasn't written by the Apostle James.. perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

 

[NathanH83]

Maybe Peter was speaking of a different Paul in his 2nd epistle, maybe Peter is a different Peter all together, perhaps the book of James wasn't written by the Apostle James.. perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

They always want to call doubt on whether Paul was mentioning this Clement. But they provide NOT ONE SINGLE example of another Clement who even lived in this generation, either from the Bible or elsewhere. They got nothing, so they have to resort to these weak arguments, which is nothing but a moot point anyway.

 

[Origen]

I have 1 Clement in writing.
I own an actual physical book that contains the letter of 1 Clement.
I took a picture of it.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF!

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 is it. Again he does not claim everything he wrote came from the Scriptures. And again I point out we know for a fact it didn't. This is just another example of your confirmation bias. You are reading into the text what you want to be there.


And again he says, “I am only steam from a pot.” (17:6)

WHERE EXACTLY can this quote (which Clement claims comes from Moses) be found in the Old Testament?


Let this scripture be far from us where it says, “Wretched are the double-minded, those who doubt in their soul and say, ‘We heard these things even in the days of our fathers, and look, we have grown old, and none of these things have happened to us.’ 4 You fools, compare yourselves to a tree, or take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a shoot comes, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these a sour grape, and then a full ripe bunch.” (23:3-4)

WHERE EXACTLY can this so-called "scripture" be found in the Old Testament?

 

[Origen]

Clement starts out saying he is going to CALL TO REMEMBRANCE some things from SACRED SCRIPTURE.

And again he says, “I am only steam from a pot.” (17:6)

WHERE EXACTLY can this quote (which Clement claims comes from Moses) be found in the Old Testament?


Let this scripture be far from us where it says, “Wretched are the double-minded, those who doubt in their soul and say, ‘We heard these things even in the days of our fathers, and look, we have grown old, and none of these things have happened to us.’ 4 You fools, compare yourselves to a tree, or take a vine: first it sheds its leaves, then a shoot comes, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these a sour grape, and then a full ripe bunch.” (23:3-4)

WHERE EXACTLY can this so-called "scripture" be found in the Old Testament?

 

[Origen]

Clement specifically says in his letter that Peter and Paul lived IN OUR OWN GENERATION:

That does nothing to refute @Josiah's comment. He pointed out that Clement "NEVER mentions knowing Paul or even meeting him."

 

[Origen]

Oh, this is interesting too.

Not really.

Ignatius. He also mentions Judith:

“Let not the widows be wanderers about, nor fond of dainties, nor gadders from house to house; but let them be like Judith, noted for her seriousness; and like Anna, eminent for her sobriety.”
-“THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS” (Chapter 5)

You grasp at shadows because you only see what you want to see, find what you want to find. What you have provided is nothing more than an interpolation which dates to the 4th century A.D and clearly was not written by Ignatius.

The Letters of Ignatius are divided into two groups: (a) the short recession and (b) the long recession. The long recession is, as Lake puts it, "greatly corrupted by obviously interpolations."

Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912–1913). The Aposolic Fathers. (K. Lake, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 168). Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.


Furthermore it has been long established that the long recession dates to the 4th century A.D.

Srawley, J. H. with St. Ignatius. (1910). The Epistle of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. (Second Edition, Revised, Vol. 1 & 2, pp. 13–14). London; Brighton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.


As anyone can see the section concerning Judith is part of the the long recession.

And this isn’t evidence that the Jews at that time accepted Judith as scripture???

Not even close.

 

[NathanH83]

Not really.


You grasp at shadows because you only see what you want to see, find what you want to find. What you have provide is nothing more than an interpolation which dates to the 4th century A.D and clearly was not written by Ignatius.

The Letters of Ignatius are divided into two groups: (a) the short recession and (b) the long recession. The long recession is, as Lake puts it, "greatly corrupted by obviously interpolations."
View attachment 1558
Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912–1913). The Apostolic fathers. (K. Lake, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 168). Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.


Furthermore it has been long established that the long recession dates to the 4th century A.D.
View attachment 1557
Srawley, J. H. with St. Ignatius. (1910). The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (Second Edition, Revised, Vol. 1 & 2, pp. 13–14). London; Brighton: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.


As anyone can see the section concerning Judith is part of the the long recession.
View attachment 1559


Not even close.

So Clement, church leader of Rome in the late 1st century, who lived the same time as Paul for 30 years, mentions Judith right alongside Esther, calls it sacred scripture, and expects his Corinthian audience to accept it as such…..oh, but there’s no evidence that Paul or any of the disciples accepted Judith as scripture.

And you actually expect people to believe you?

Clearly, Judith is Jewish history from before the time of Christ, and accepted by the disciples themselves and by the very first Christians. The evidence is overwhelming. No wonder Rome, Hippo, and Carthage made the declarations that they did.

But, you can go ahead and continue to close your eyes and close your ears to the facts in order to cling to your pre-conceived notions.

 

[Josiah]

So what have we got here?

... ANOTHER entirely baseless claim from you....


1. You've provided NOTHING to show that the man with the popular name of "Clement" mentioned by Paul in Philippians is the very same man as the one with the popular name "Clement" whom the Catholic Church claims as a bishop in Rome and an early Pope of that denomination. You HAVE shown they were contemporaries (which no one disputes) but nothing to show they are the same man. A baseless, entirely unsubstantiated claim... pure speculation.... POSSIBLE (of course, as would be that anyone with the name of Joseph is therefore the president of the US) but "possible" does not equal fact.

2. You've provided nothing to show that Clement of Rome believed that the BOOK of Judith is "Sacred Scripture" and there must be an international law mandating that every tome publishing houses market with the word "BIBLE" on it be required to include the Book of Judith. You've shown that he mentions a PERSON, a WOMAN, with the name of Judith but no one disputes that. And of course since you don't give a rip what books early Christians think was Scripture, we're left amazed why it matters to you what Clement might have possibly thought.


So..... again, yet again, I've lost count of how often this has happened.. you make wild claims that are just pure speculation at best... You have nothing. Indeed, often less.... amazingly, you often go to some length to provide the proof that you are wrong.




.

 

[Josiah]

So Clement, church leader of Rome in the late 1st century, who lived the same time as Paul for 30 years

....doesn't prove they are the same man. Your claim is BASELESS... pure speculation. There's a man at my church in his late 70's with the popular first name of "Donald" but that does not prove he is the former president of the US.

, mentions Judith right alongside Esther,

Yes, he mentions two WOMEN "in the same breath." He is obviously speaking of two PEOPLE. He says nothing about any book. If a man is named Matthew, that does not prove ergo he is a book.

calls it sacred scripture,

You proved he did not.

And you don't give a rip what any church father thinks was Scripture so it's odd of you (but typical) to insist WE should care what one man MIGHT think is Scripture (but you have ZERO evidence of such - nothing at all) when you insist it doesn't matter what any ECF might think on this. I showed ECF who said that the Epistle of Barnabas is Scripture - but that's totally to be ignored.... I showed you ECF that said that the Shepherd of Hermas is Scripture but you insist that doesn't matter.... I showed you ECF who said that the Didache is Scripture but you insist it doesn't matter. But you can't show that this ECF accepted the BOOK of Judith as anything but THAT is all important... absolutely authoritative..... mandated to agree with. Not only do you make claims that are pure speculation with NOTHING to substantiate such but your inconsistency, circular and bad logic.... well, it's amazing.



.

 

[Origen]

So Clement, church leader of Rome in the late 1st century, who lived the same time as Paul for 30 years, mentions Judith right alongside Esther, calls it sacred scripture

He does not call it scripture.

However there is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes.

"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images. And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. Oh mighty love! Oh unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth that himself also be blotted out with them."

and expects his Corinthian audience to accept it as such

Clement says no such thing. That is just another example of you reading into the text something that is not there.

And you actually expect people to believe you?

It matters what can be proven and you have not proven that Clement calls Judith scripture.

Clearly, Judith is Jewish history from before the time of Christ, and accepted by the disciples themselves and by the very first Christians.

There is ZERO evidence it was accepted by the disciples themselves. That claim is pure fantasy.

The evidence is overwhelming.

"Overwhelming," don't make me laugh. Oh you must mean the evidence of the Ignatius interpolation, or maybe the fact that disciples NEVER quote or even mention Judith, or perhaps the fact that 1st Clement no where calls Judith scripture or even quotes the book, or the fact that Clement quotes sources he says are Scripture BUT clearly are not and which you completely ignore.

No wonder Rome

This has already been covered. At best the Rome information is unreliable, at worse a fabrication.

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

I’m guessing some time in the 1500’s? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

christianityhaven.com

 

[NathanH83]

He does not call it scripture.

However there is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes.

"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images. And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. Oh mighty love! Oh unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth that himself also be blotted out with them."


Clement says no such thing. That is just another example of you reading into the text something that is not there.


It matters what can be proven and you have not proven that Clement calls Judith scripture.


There is ZERO evidence it was accepted by the disciples themselves. That claim is pure fantasy.


"Overwhelming," don't make me laugh. Oh you must mean the evidence of the Ignatius interpolation, or maybe the fact that disciples NEVER quote or even mention Judith, or perhaps the fact that 1st Clement no where calls Judith scripture or even quotes the book, or the fact that Clement quotes sources he says are Scripture BUT clearly are not and which you completely ignore.


This has already been covered. At best the Rome information is unreliable, at worse a fabrication.

What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

I’m guessing some time in the 1500’s? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

christianityhaven.com

The disciples never quote Esther. Better rip that out of your Bible and throw it in the trash.

You have a very low view of the scriptures.