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

[Josiah]

When Jesus mentioned Jonah in Matthew 12, he only mentioned the PERSON Jonah, not the BOOK Jonah.

Correct. Jesus never mentions any book in Matthew 12. He mentions a PERSON. Odd how you notice that in Matthew 12 but not in 1 Clement.




You made two claims here.

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

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. Baseless caims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Do you actually expect to convince any thinking person of these pathetic and non-existing arguments?

Wrong. Jesus never mentions any book in Matthew 12. He mentions a PERSON. And nope, He never states, "And thus the Book of Jonah has been authoritatively declared by Judaism to be the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and there must be an international law that mandates that it be in every tome ever marketed anywhere with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover.

You'd avoid such self-embarrassment if you actually READ things. What embarrassment you would have avoided if you actually READ Matthew 12! Jesus uses the example of a MAN - a PERSON - He says nothing in Matthew 12 about any books.... especially that some book has been authoritative declared by Judaism to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. IF I stated that President Obama gives us an example of rising above racism, that would NOT mean that ERGO every book that has the word "OBAMA" in the title is thus the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. THINK! Now, I find it LIKELY that He did accept the Book of Jonah as such because many scholars hold that Jesus leaned toward a larger corpus of Scripture (as opposed to the Sadducees and Sanhedrin that tended to accept only the Five Books of Moses) BUT there's nothing in Matthew 12 that makes that case. As you'd know if you read it. Jesus speaks of a MAN, not a BOOK. In fact, the word "book" only appears once in the Gospel of Matthew, and that's not in Chapter 12 or is said by Jesus.

Do you actually expect to convince any thinking person of these pathetic and non-existing arguments?



You made two claims here.

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

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. Baseless caims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.




.

Huh???

 

[NathanH83]

Here’s Irenaeus claiming that Clement knew the disciples, met them, and had conversations with them:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.”

-Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” Book 3, chapter 3
From “The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

 

[Josiah]

Here’s Irenaeus claiming that Clement knew the disciples, met them, and had conversations with them:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.”

-Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 3
From “The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

Nice quote.


Now, stop dodging the issue....

You made two claims here.

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

Funny, you went to some effort to prove that Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope in Rome) is the same dude as the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians. And Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement writing that the book of Judith is Divine Scritpure, inerrant, equally/fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. Here again, you prove you have NOTHING. I sometimes wonder if you read your own posts.... because if you actually did, you wouldn't post it.

This is what you've been doing since you came to this site two years 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. Baseless claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.... ad nausium... for over two years now.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Nice quote.


Now, stop dodging the issue....

You made two claims here.

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

Funny, you went to some effort to prove that Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope in Rome) is the same dude as the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians. And Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement writing that the book of Judith is Divine Scritpure, inerrant, equally/fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. Here again, you prove you have NOTHING. I sometimes wonder if you read your own posts.... because if you actually did, you wouldn't post it.

This is what you've been doing since you came to this site two years 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. Baseless claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.... ad nausium... for over two years now.




.

Who’s dodging the issue?

Clement knew the disciples and had conversations with them. And Clement references Judith as sacred scripture.

 

[Josiah]

Clement knew the disciples and had conversations with them.

So did St. John. But how does that prove either of your claims?

Here are your claims here:

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

Funny, you went to some effort to prove that Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope in Rome) is the same dude as the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians. And Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement writing that the book of Judith is Divine Scritpure, inerrant, equally/fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. Here again, you prove you have NOTHING. I sometimes wonder if you read your own posts.... because if you actually did, you wouldn't post it.

This is what you've been doing since you came to this site two years 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. Baseless claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.... ad nausium... for over two years now.

And Clement references Judith as sacred scripture.

You proved St. Clement of Rome did not. You yourself did that. He speaks of a WOMAN. He never mentions the Book of Judith and never calls that "Sacred" anything. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that.





.

 

[Andrew]

So did St. John. But how does that prove either of your claims?

Here are your claims here:

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

Funny, you went to some effort to prove that Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope in Rome) is the same dude as the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians. And Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement writing that the book of Judith is Divine Scritpure, inerrant, equally/fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. Here again, you prove you have NOTHING. I sometimes wonder if you read your own posts.... because if you actually did, you wouldn't post it.

This is what you've been doing since you came to this site two years 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. Baseless claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.... ad nausium... for over two years now.





You proved St. Clement of Rome did not. You yourself did that. He speaks of a WOMAN. He never mentions the Book of Judith and never calls that "Sacred" anything. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that.





.

Jerome says that Judith and Tobit had spread world wide and that men of the Churches used them (along with other books)...

He points to Hebrew Canon as the offical updated and revised Christian Canon, Christians got upset about it but Jerome's heart was set on UNBELIEVERS.

He even called the books of Judith and Tobit Ecclesiastical, encouraging it's use but not for doctrine (because it steps on the wittle toes of his "truthful" unbelieving Christ-hating Rabbis)

Yes this is broad as can be because you could care less if I provide you with the sources that prove what I state.

You're "technicality" mentality tells me that if 99% of the early Church confesses that these books are divine Sacred Scripture, as long as the 1% object then it's 'non universal' because there was no great and fantastic binding authoritative group of Christians to officially authorize anything... except Jerome ALONE

..because somehow the Pharisees and Scribes of the anti-Christ body of unbelievers are allowed to FIX what the Christian church has erred in for centuries..

YES Jerome states this as well. (except HE calls them the Hebrew TRUTH)

Jerome brought Truth to Christianity in the 4th Century, Luther was the first to truly embrace it in the 15th Century and the Foreign Bible Society and ABS brought Gods Word to the world in the 19th Century. (So called "canon" in a nutshell)

 

[NathanH83]

Jerome says that Judith and Tobit had spread world wide and that men of the Churches used them (along with other books)...

He points to Hebrew Canon as the offical updated and revised Christian Canon, Christians got upset about it but Jerome's heart was set on UNBELIEVERS.

He even called the books of Judith and Tobit Ecclesiastical, encouraging it's use but not for doctrine (because it steps on the wittle toes of his "truthful" unbelieving Christ-hating Rabbis)

Yes this is broad as can be because you could care less if I provide you with the sources that prove what I state.

You're "technicality" mentality tells me that if 99% of the early Church confesses that these books are divine Sacred Scripture, as long as the 1% object then it's 'non universal' because there was no great and fantastic binding authoritative group of Christians to officially authorize anything... except Jerome ALONE

..because somehow the Pharisees and Scribes of the anti-Christ body of unbelievers are allowed to FIX what the Christian church has erred in for centuries..

YES Jerome states this as well. (except HE calls them the Hebrew TRUTH)

Jerome brought Truth to Christianity in the 4th Century, Luther was the first to truly embrace it in the 15th Century and the Foreign Bible Society and ABS brought Gods Word to the world in the 19th Century. (So called "canon" in a nutshell)

Awe, did they stub their wittle toes?

 

[NathanH83]

So did St. John. But how does that prove either of your claims?

Here are your claims here:

1. The man with the very common name of Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is actually the same person as St. Clement of Rome. Indeed, you called St. Clement 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. And it would not have made any difference if he did since you hold that what individual Christians held was Sacred Scripture is irrelevant and to be dismissed. And of course, it would not have meant that St.Paul held to that view, even if you could prove St.Clement of Rome is the guy with the same very common name mentioned in Philippians. Your claim is entirely baseless... and moot anyway.

Funny, you went to some effort to prove that Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement of Rome (claimed to be the Third Pope in Rome) is the same dude as the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians. And Irenaeus said NOTHING about St. Clement writing that the book of Judith is Divine Scritpure, inerrant, equally/fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be in any tome marketed with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. Here again, you prove you have NOTHING. I sometimes wonder if you read your own posts.... because if you actually did, you wouldn't post it.

This is what you've been doing since you came to this site two years 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. Baseless claims.... pure speculation... theoretical possibilities.... "what if's"..... And this goes on and on and on and on and on and on.... ad nausium... for over two years now.





You proved St. Clement of Rome did not. You yourself did that. He speaks of a WOMAN. He never mentions the Book of Judith and never calls that "Sacred" anything. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that.





.

Your claims and our claims and their claims over their.
You claimed that and I claimed this.
And claims here and claims there.
Everywhere a claim claim.
Claim claim claim.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,

The ONLY thing I "claimed" is that you've not substantiated your endless chain of claims. And this is obvious to everyone.

You claimed that and that.
Claims here and claims there.
Everywhere a claim claim.
Claim claim claim.
Never with a rip of care about truth
Never with any substantiation.



.

 

[Josiah]

Jerome says that Judith and Tobit had spread world wide and that men of the Churches used them (along with other books)...

1. Nathan (and perhaps also you) have made it very clear that it matters NOT AT ALL what a few esteemed Christians think is Scripture. Totally dismissed as irrelevant are the statements that the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus and the Epistle to the Leodiceans, the Revelation of Peter are "sacred Scripture".... when early esteemed Christians say these 9and others) are "sacred Scripture" it is just ignored and totally dismissed because what ECF believe doesn't matter. EXCEPT when you can find one whom you think is IMPLYING that about some book YOU embrace in SOME way. Friend, obviously, you can't have it both ways.


2. Can you show me where Jerome states "The Clement Paul speaks of in Philippians is in fact St. Clement of Rome, the Third Pope."


3. Can you show me where Jerome states, "The Book of Judith is inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be in very tome marketed with "BIBLE" written on the cover."


Otherwise, I don't see where Jerome says anything substantiating the claims Nathan makes in this thread.... or why we should accept one man on THIS book but ignore all other ECF's on any other book.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan,

The ONLY thing I "claimed" is that you've not substantiated your endless chain of claims. And this is obvious to everyone.

You claimed that and that.
Claims here and claims there.
Everywhere a claim claim.
Claim claim claim.
Never with a rip of care about truth
Never with any substantiation.



.

If you’re not making any claims, then what’s your objective?

You’re playing on a soccer field, and you won’t defend this goal, but you also won’t defend the other goal.

I’d say you don’t know how to play the game. Get off the field.

 

[Josiah]

If you’re not making any claims, then what’s your objective?

Truth.

When people make claims that impact Christianity, I hold that it matters whether it's true or not. I reject the premise that if Nathan speculates stuff, that's exempt from accountability cuz you claim it.

You seem to not know how to play the game. Just because you can make some speculation, some guess, some claim... does NOT mean ERGO it is unaccountable and exempt from truth cuz you are you and can copy/paste something you found online. Here's how the game is played: The one who makes the claim, the position, the thesis has the full "burden of proof" to show that it's TRUE (to the level claimed). It is NOT the role of others to substantiate it for you (your being so lazy) or to prove the opposite is true - that's NOT how the game is played. And simply supplying questions and endless "what if's" and showing that it's POSSIBLE is not substantiation. A violation of the game.

You obviously don't how how to play the game.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Truth.

When people make claims that impact Christianity, I hold that it matters whether it's true or not. I reject the premise that if Nathan speculates stuff, that's exempt from accountability cuz you claim it.

You seem to not know how to play the game. Just because you can make some speculation, some guess, some claim... does NOT mean ERGO it is unaccountable and exempt from truth cuz you are you and can copy/paste something you found online. Here's how the game is played: The one who makes the claim, the position, the thesis has the full "burden of proof" to show that it's TRUE (to the level claimed). It is NOT the role of others to substantiate it for you (your being so lazy) or to prove the opposite is true - that's NOT how the game is played. And simply supplying questions and endless "what if's" and showing that it's POSSIBLE is not substantiation. A violation of the game.

You obviously don't how how to play the game.



.

I don’t think your objective is truth. I think your objective is to attack people.
You don’t want to actually discuss the issue. You don’t want to share your belief of whether the Apocrypha belongs or not. All you want to do is attack, attack, attack.

 

[Andrew]

1. Nathan (and perhaps also you) have made it very clear that it matters NOT AT ALL what a few esteemed Christians think is Scripture. Totally dismissed as irrelevant are the statements that the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus and the Epistle to the Leodiceans, the Revelation of Peter are "sacred Scripture".... when early esteemed Christians say these 9and others) are "sacred Scripture" it is just ignored and totally dismissed because what ECF believe doesn't matter. EXCEPT when you can find one whom you think is IMPLYING that about some book YOU embrace in SOME way. Friend, obviously, you can't have it both ways.


2. Can you show me where Jerome states "The Clement Paul speaks of in Philippians is in fact St. Clement of Rome, the Third Pope."


3. Can you show me where Jerome states, "The Book of Judith is inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be in very tome marketed with "BIBLE" written on the cover."


Otherwise, I don't see where Jerome says anything substantiating the claims Nathan makes in this thread.... or why we should accept one man on THIS book but ignore all other ECF's on any other book.



.

I'm so sorry you depend on all things Jerome for the endorsement of your make believe protestant canon in spite of the "world wide" "men of the Church" who would most definitely object to any 66 book "canon" (according to Jerome)

 

[Josiah]

I'm so sorry you depend on all things Jerome for the endorsement of your make believe protestant canon in spite of the "world wide" "men of the Church" who would most definitely object to any 66 book "canon" (according to Jerome)

I don't depend on Jerome. For anything.

Nathan (and you?) are the ones who insist there is a "Protestant canon."


.

 

[Pedrito]

===============================================================================

Would pointing out that 1 Clement is not part of the internally consistent Holy Canon of Scripture, be considered inclement?

===============================================================================

 

[FredVB]

I get told that the apocrypha is scripture even if I don't believe it is, when I ask why, I am just told "There’s a lot of convincing reasons." Here I find fallacious appeal to authority, and not anything else. Is that all there is for a lot of convincing reasons?

 

[NathanH83]

I get told that the apocrypha is scripture even if I don't believe it is, when I ask why, I am just told "There’s a lot of convincing reasons." Here I find fallacious appeal to authority, and not anything else. Is that all there is for a lot of convincing reasons?

There ARE a lot of convincing reasons. Let’s discuss them one by one.