Fair enough, keep up the good work on these videos. There are a lot of mythicists/atheist on you tube who are trying to re-write the history of the church. Appreciate your defense of the faith.
@@glennlanham6309 Yes, as an orthodox Christian I agree. At the time of my comment, Mythicism was a huge cult on youtube. I felt the video pushed back on the absurdity of it.
I've found 9 pre-nicene writings, from Ireneaus in 180 AD, explicitly affirming the authority of the Bishop of Rome over all churches: - Clement of Alexandra -Tertullian -The Letter of Clement to James -Origin - Cyprian of Carthage -The Martyrs of Lyons -Ireneaus -Firmilian -The Clementine Homilies I've only found one writing explicitly refuting the authority of the Bishop of Rome - Cyprian of Carthage (also affirmed the papacy in another writing of his)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
@@VoiceofTruth-iv8pq From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause. Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas“). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Albert Barnes Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian “The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170]. John Broadus Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist “As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356]. Craig L. Blomberg Contemporary Baptist “The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252]. J. Knox Chamblin Contemporary Presbyterian “By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742]. R. T. France Contemporary Anglican “The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). Herman Ridderbos Contemporary Dutch Reformed “It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. Donald Hagner Contemporary Evangelical “The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470). Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). The startling thing was that-aside from the single time that Abraham is called a “rock” (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2. Two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense. Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city-an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost-meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
It's funny how Protestants actually believe themselves to be Christians and to possess the same faith as the Early Church Fathers since if they actually took the time to read about their beliefs they would realise that the Fathers would condemn them as heretical. www.churchfathers.org/ ruclips.net/p/PLGVSKByrYzsufIKilFHFUDlvpSYFlSuvT
If Clement had no jurisdiction over Corinth then why did they ask him for advice if he had no authority . The early Church went to Peter this tradition was carried on by Clement .
It is not known why the Corinthian church wrote to the church in Rome. Sadly, we don't have their letter. We don't know the true reason why they wrote to Clement. There are many good reasons we could come up with as to why they wrote. (1) My first thought is they wrote to Rome because that was the last place Paul was before he died. Paul was the Corinthian church's spiritual father. I imagine the presbyters who were there wanted to contact the church leader who personally knew Paul (which was Clement). (2) Another thought is that the Corinthian church wrote to many church leaders. It is possible that they also wrote to Ignatius or Polycarp, students of the apostle John. If they did, none of the letters between them survived. As far as jurisdiction and authority, this idea did not really begin until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There were strong centers of the Church, like Rome, but none of the churches had authority over other churches. As far as the early church going to Peter for spiritual teaching, I am sure this is true. However, they didn't go to Peter any more than they went to Paul and John. In other words, the early Church, as a whole, did not favor one apostle over another. Of course, in matters of sound doctrine, the apostles did not differ.
Post-Apostolic Church The Homilies and Recognitions isn't the Peshitta, the Peshitta is the Syriac NT and is not very old compared to the H&R of Clement. It was written in Syriac aka Christian Aramaic making it the only Aramaic language MS in Christianity from ancient times. It's likely more true historically than and older than if not what was replaced by the farcical Acts which was only written to fool people into believing that the James and Peter sect of Nazarenes were friends and agreed with the anti Torah/Law teachings of Paul, as well as his do nothing but still be "saved" faith alone justifies us nonsense. "Foolish man, do you want to be told, faith without works is dead?" James brother of Jesus pbuh engaging in a pol-emic against Paul using the exact same passage about Abraham that Paul used, but in refutation. Christianity is intolerant, and it's because Paul was a jerk, insulting the Apostles as "False Apostles of Christ"..."No wonder even Satan appears as an angel of light." This is always denied by Christians but scholars and competent exegetes examining it in context know better as a. Who else could he be taking about that he had issues with that are Apostles of Christ without just making up the existence of hitherto unknown false apostles. Paul did this because "All those who are in Asia have turned from me." "To the 7 Churches of Asia..." "...those who say they ate Apostles and are not, and are liars." Jesus to Ephesus congratulating them for rejecting the only provably false apostle in the Bible who claims to be what "God appointed" Peter to be "Apostle to the Gentiles" and as I said God doesn't make mistakes but Paul does lie. Vision of New Jerusalem revealed that there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. Matthias replaced Judas and that we have proof Paul doesn't qualify according to his own companion Luke is undeniably in Acts in the mouth of the real Apostle to the Nations/Gentiles Simon Cepha. So if someone replaced John it'd have to be the loser in the lot drawing of Acts. Codex Bezae says it's Barnabas Justus/Zaddik, but it can't be Paul and since Revelation says 12 it's not possible as Matthias replacement of Judas needs him to be the last in order not to contradict Revelation.
Post-Apostolic Church The Homilies and Recognitions isn't the Peshitta, the Peshitta is the Syriac NT and is not very old compared to the H&R of Clement. It was written in Syriac aka Christian Aramaic making it the only Aramaic language MS in Christianity from ancient times. It's likely more true historically than and older than if not what was replaced by the farcical Acts which was only written to fool people into believing that the James and Peter sect of Nazarenes were friends and agreed with the anti Torah/Law teachings of Paul, as well as his do nothing but still be "saved" faith alone justifies us nonsense. "Foolish man, do you want to be told, faith without works is dead?" James brother of Jesus pbuh engaging in a pol-emic against Paul using the exact same passage about Abraham that Paul used, but in refutation. Christianity is intolerant, and it's because Paul was a jerk, insulting the Apostles as "False Apostles of Christ"..."No wonder even Satan appears as an angel of light." This is always denied by Christians but scholars and competent exegetes examining it in context know better as a. Who else could he be taking about that he had issues with that are Apostles of Christ without just making up the existence of hitherto unknown false apostles. Paul did this because "All those who are in Asia have turned from me." "To the 7 Churches of Asia..." "...those who say they ate Apostles and are not, and are liars." Jesus to Ephesus congratulating them for rejecting the only provably false apostle in the Bible who claims to be what "God appointed" Peter to be "Apostle to the Gentiles" and as I said God doesn't make mistakes but Paul does lie. Vision of New Jerusalem revealed that there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb. Matthias replaced Judas and that we have proof Paul doesn't qualify according to his own companion Luke is undeniably in Acts in the mouth of the real Apostle to the Nations/Gentiles Simon Cepha. So if someone replaced John it'd have to be the loser in the lot drawing of Acts. Codex Bezae says it's Barnabas Justus/Zaddik, but it can't be Paul and since Revelation says 12 it's not possible as Matthias replacement of Judas needs him to be the last in order not to contradict Revelation.
Good video. Thanks for the information. My only issue is that at 4:00 you speculate about Clement's papal authority which seems out of place in an otherwise historical essay.
I found it odd as well that they seemed to try to diminish his authority yet it was the Corinthians that appealed to him. If Clement wasnt in fact in a position of Authority over the Church then why wouldnt the Greek Corinthians appeal to the Church in Constantinople and fellow Greeks? I detect a bit of bias........
@@ragnardanneskajold1880im assuming the person who made this video was skeptical of that, the Catholic Church absolutely identifies clement being the pope at the time and they have their reasons to, He’s included on the timeline of canon popes from the apostolic era.
If 2 Clement would have made it into the canonic bible text, it would have been direct proof of the deity of Christ. It starts with the words: "Brethren, it is fitting that you would think of Jesus Christ as of God, - as the judge of the living and the dead."
Thank you, I like your video's very much. I haven't watched them all yet but it's very interesting to find out what the early church fathers believed. GBU!
Some scholars suggest an even earlier date for 1 Clement, around AD 70. Regardless, it is one of, if not the earliest writing outside the NT. The letter quotes to or alludes to other NT works . It says nothiong about the triune God and so clearly is very early.
Peter, Linus, Anancletes, clement were first four fathers (pope's) to the Christian people just as Shebna & Eliakim were also fathers ( popes ) to the kings people until the king returns & they too held the keys of the kingdom as we see Christ quotes directly from Is 22:15 when makin Peter his Shepard (vicar) over His people until he returns..This perpetual office is explained in detail in Isaiah and 1st kings
Clement sat in the 'Chair of Peter' ( Jerome - Letters 15:1 [ A.D. 396] ). That is why the Corinthians wrote to him asking to settle the matter. Like Peter in Acts 15 once Clement weighed in the Matter was settled. The Chair of Peter supplants and is superior to the Chair of Moses due to Christ revealed and His charge to Peter.
You will never find any letter were the Bishop of Rome says he is Pope, but others appeal to His authority which is recognised throughout the world..If you read AGAINST HERESIES, you will read in it a history of the Church & all the successors of Peter..All the Bishops like the apostles are equally Bishops but by a special charism, Peter & His successors are recognised as having final authority as we see in the 1st council of Jerusalem-Peter speaks & all agree..If no1 has authority then we cnt accept the canon of scripture as there was varying groups who didnt agree on what books belonged but all agreed once the Pope made his authoritative decision & Augustine said if not for Peter's successors, he could never agree on a canon..Without an authoritative Church u get the protestant Church but yet the Catholic Church is THE OLDEST INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD, even recognised as so by 27 eastern Churches who are once again in full communion with her..
Aude Sapere Peter was the first Pope and Clement was the 2nd Pope. They didn’t know it. If you laugh at that idea, do you think anyone who fought in the First World War, knew they were engaged in the First World war? Those that were fighting the 2nd world war didn’t realize it either. They referred to the First World War as the “Great War”. It wasn’t until some time after 1945 that the two wars could be seen for what they were and named as such. Likewise for the first Bishops of Rome.
To claim that the Papacy- a doctrine rooted in the teachings of the Old and New Testaments- is "pagan" is blasphemy. For you claim that Christ's teachings are "pagan". I dare you to actually investigate the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and what the Bible actually teaches. You will not be saved Protestants, I say this in charity. www.churchfathers.org ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.html
Authority yes but the least is the most and not to impose authority over others Jesus washed peters feet! Show humility humbleness and servant! When people wanted to worship the apostles they ran out and tore their clothes shouting they are just fellow men!
You're comment on Clement and the Papacy is one from silence and you assume that he did not hold the Primacy. The fact is Irenaeaus listed the successors of Peter that includes Clement. Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome to hold the keys to the kingdom.
You likewise have to make an argument from silence that He _WAS_ the Pope and head of the whole Christian church. Along with subsequent overseers up to the state takeover of the faith delivered to the Saints. You cannot come to the conclusion that the early church was *ANYTHING* like the Roman Catholic Church then or now. (post Augustine) It's a completely different animal.
5 лет назад+2
@prairie mark And Paul had to correct Peter to his face for his error. Galatians 2:11-14. No, Peter was no poope. He was an apostle but no higher rank than that... Anything else attributed to Peter, etc is man made and bullshit. The catholics now love to worship the poope, mary, dead saints, etc. The poope is no Christ and he is sinful as the rest of us. Be careful, that you don't elevated sinful man above GOD, like the catholics love to do.
@prairie mark no where in the Bible does it say to worship Mary or to treat her at the same level as God yet the Catholics do it. Also we have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us regenerate believers that are born again, not of flesh and blood but od Spirit and Truth. Go read your new testament. Catholicism is man made theology trying to elevate the pope and man to a higher rank than he should be. We have direct access to God. We do not need a Catholic priest mediator. We are priests unto God (Peter says that in his 2 epistles.)
No proof? Stop reading 21st century Protestant books that tell you this bs. Atheists use the same talking points Origen (In Joann. 1, 29), Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III. 15), Epiphanius (Hær., XXVII. 6), and Jerome (De Vir. III.) identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv. 3), making him a special pupil of Paul. This supposition Chrysostom carries still further (Comm. in 1 Tim.), speaking of Clement as the steady companion of Paul on all his travels; while the Clementine literature, in harmony with its Judeo-Christian character, brings him in the closest connection with Peter, and makes him his most intimate pupil.
I believe that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is the writer of this letter. However, another interesting point is that some Biblical Scholars believe that two of the messengers in chapter 65 - Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, looking at Claudian and Valerian families importance in Rome at the time, they might have been servants in "Caesar's household" mentioned in Philippians 4:22.
Not all scholars agree that this Clement was the one referred to by the apostle in the New Testament. The Catholic Church views Clement of Rome as the second or third bishop or pope of Rome. He is one of the first men to advocate "Apostolic Succession" and the "order of the priesthood." His quotes on the orders reflect a first century forgery that had the apostles visited by an invisible Jesus, who laid hands on the apostles and conferred the "Moses/Aaron" priesthood upon them. One can readily see that this man was far from Holy Spirit inspiration when he quotes on "the Phoenix Bird" who traveled to the city of the "sun."
prairie mark yes, that’s true. But when you read the book of I Clement with the eye of faith, you can quickly determine that it is NOT a divinely inspired book of Holy Scripture!
@prairie mark yes. I should rephrase what I said before because I wrote it in haste: a work like Clement's can be inspired but not infallible like the Bible.
prairie mark That’s true; but if you need to remember,brother,the Historical Orthodox principal: a work can be inspired but not necessarily infallible like the Holy Scriptures.
prairie mark Allow me to elaborate on what I stated earlier: the Historic Orthodox principle is that a work can be inspired but not necessarily infallible like the Holy Scriptures
I need to ask this question if you could reply to this. Is it possible that Clement of Rome knew who Sosthenes that is in 1st Corinthians 1:1. I am very curious about this. Or is the timeline to far apart for these 2 to know each other?
Thanks for the Videos - i tried to look for the video where you mentioned that a bishop has the same office as the bishop of rome. Can you please help me with that link .
That is a good question. I also thought it was this video. Perhaps it was my introduction video. Or maybe I said it in a comment? I'm sorry that I don't remember. God bless!
Thanks for asking. I can better answer your question if you explained more about what you are looking for. God be with you! Please let me know if my reply isn't what you are looking for. Every Christian group does their leadership differently. Churches that do NOT have bishops/presbyters/deacons include Lutherans, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I could be wrong, but I believe these groups use the Pastor system. Perhaps this will help: - Catholicism has those roles and adds the Pope. - Orthodoxy has those roles and adds Patriarchs. - Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Methodism have these roles; and there have councils that oversee all churches under each of them. - Anabaptists (Mennonite/Amish) and Restorationism have these roles, saying that bishop and presbyter is the same role; and each individual congregation is self-governing (no councils).
All churches within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism have apostolic succession. You can find apostolic succession in some of the others, but it it is rare and hard to find. Though Pentecostals do not have a bishop/elder/deacon leadership system, there are some groups of Pentecostals that have apostolic succession.
Only the catholic and orthodox church have apostolic sucession the Anglican church does not have apostolic sucession and no other church that was born out of the reformation have apostolic sucession.
Thank you for commenting. God forbid!!! During the Pre-Nicene period of the church, if any Christian prayed to Mary or called her the queen of heaven would have been quickly excommunicated as a heretic. God bless you.
If Clement did not have papal authority, how is it that he was settling problems in Corinth when there were two episcopal seats much closer? Nor would a mere presbyter (prebst/priest) have had any such authority.
Thank you for commenting and great question. When I read through 1Clement, I didn't see that Clement's letter was to settle problems. Unlike Paul, who addressed the problem and exercised his weight as an apostle, Clement's letter doesn't really address the problem very much. From what I read, Clement didn't exercise any weight as an authority over other churches. What I see Clement doing is giving the Corinthian church a lot of advise. His main point is that they should be acting more like Christ as well as the heroes of faith of the past. In short, I didn't see any evidence of Clement showing any authority over the church in Corinth. It was like the church in Corinth wanted to hear Clement's input as an advisor.
@@PostApostolicChurch - He gave them kind and charitable advice in the letter, advice and or suggestion are subtle commands indeed. It seems to me that He told them to trust those who were put in authority over them and that He was telling them what to do in kind and subtle manner.
Thank you for commenting. There may always be a disagreement about who wrote 2Clement. But I believe Clement of Rome wrote it. I have heard 2Clement, and I don't remember any Gnostic quotes in it. Do you know of any statements in 2Clement that sound Gnostic? God bless you.
@@PostApostolicChurch The Wikipedia article implies 2 Clement quotes "The Gospel of Peter" & "The Gospel Of Thomas" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Clement I haven't read it myself, but I think I will soon once I finish reading the works of Justin Martyr.
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV I see what you mean by those statements that seem to appear in both 2Clement and the Gospel of Thomas. If 2Clement was written by Clement of Rome, then those statements were FIRST given by 2Clement, and may have been "adopted" by the Gnostics. If 2Clement was written by someone else (and as late as 140 AD), then it is debatable which came first: 2Clement or the Gospel of Thomas. Either way, after looking at the statement in 2Clement, that was such an interesting and mysterious statement. If Jesus really did say those words, then I guess that Jesus is referring to the final coming of the Kingdom, as Jesus said in Luke 20:34-36.
@@PostApostolicChurch wow, I didn't think of that! Thank you. When will your next video be done? I hope in the future you make a video regarding the ante nicene beliefs on Mary. God bless.
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV Currently, I'm working on the next series: Early Christianity on the Son of God. As I do this research, I can tell it will take a while before the next video is ready. One day, many years from now, I hope to do a video on Mary. But it will be a very long time.
If Clement wasn’t a leader and wasn’t looked to as an authority then why did Greek Corinthians appeal to Him and not to the Bishop of Constantinople, a fellow Greek?
Thank you for commenting. Clement was a leader (presbyter) at the church in Rome. He was one of many presbyters. As 1Clement states at the beginning, the letter is from the church at Rome. People have credited Clement as the author, but the letter itself is addressed from "the Church at Rome." Good question about why Corinth appealed to the church in Rome instead of Constantinople. I don't think anyone knows why. But my guess is that the church in Rome (under Clement and the other presbyters) had a very good reputation at the time. Additionally, while there was a church in Constantinople at the time, there was no such position of authority as the Bishop of Constantinople. For those two reasons, I would guess that the church in Rome was the most trusted church in the year 100 AD. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch - there was no Bishop at Constantinople in the 1st Century? That doesnt seem plausible but I would need to ask some Greek Orthodox Scholars about that as Apostolic Succession is extremely important to them and they have good records of the Bishops of the Holy Sees. I think history demonstrates that the occupant of Peters Seat was first among equals and even the orthodox acknowledge that as Rome was appealed to time and again even from Constantinople later in Church History.
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 Yes, I would be very, very interested in what the Orthodox scholars say about that. From what I know about history, Constantinople didn't become a See until the Council of Nicaea. It was at the Council that the Church officially began a system of oversight by region. But I don't think this was the case in the first couple hundred years of Christianity. I think this is demonstrated by the example of Corinth writing to Clement and Rome (instead of Constantinople). I wish we had Corinth's letter to Clement/Rome. That would shed more light on our questions.
Thanks for asking. When it comes to the Clementine works, there is so much mystery behind them. The question I ask is: when does history first record that these writings existed? Eusebius said that he had heard of them but that the earliest Christians made no mention of them. This is in contrast to 1Clement, which is universally believed to be written by Clement of Rome. The Clementines have been generally regarded as non-orthodox. From my research, I suspect that these were written by the Ebionites in the late second century or third century, and they attributed it to Clement. The biggest evidence for this, I think, is that the origin of this book coincides with the rise of the Ebionites. And secondly, because there is no mention of the apostle Paul in the Clementines, or purposefully making Paul the "villain." To me, this is the biggest evidence against this work. In short, I do not believe the Clementines were written by Clement of Rome. And I suspect that it was written by "unorthodox Christians," possibly the Ebionites. God bless!
However, if you read the document - it describes James commissioning Clement with the task of writing down his conversations and encounters with Peter, which he would send to James who presumably combined all the writings working under the agenda of essentially making "Scripture", a work of writings for the future church to use. Since James was highly associated with the Ebionites, it makes sense why the Ebionites would champion this document since it was made under the charge of James to Clement...Just my thoughts. I think it's also of note, that the Ebionites branched from the "Nazarenes" and the Catholic historians all agree the Nazarenes were the Original Jewish Christians. In Acts Paul was accused of being the ringleader of the Nazarenes: "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect" - Acts 24:5 Although the Ebionites held distorted doctrine, I would contend that since they came from the original Christians, that they very much operated the way the early Jewish Christian Church under the leadership of James would have operated. In other words, the Ebionites aren't entirely bad or "Unorthodox". They are only unorthodox relative to our Roman gentile expression of Christianity. Yes Paul, during the time Clement would have been writing for James, was an enemy and persecuting the Church. The conversion would not have happened until later.
Thanks for sharing such good information. I appreciate the internal evidence and let the work defend itself. 1) If there was this agreement between James, Clement, and Peter happened, and they left the church to their predecessors, then why didn't any of those predecessors speak about this? As we see at the time of Eusebius, these Clementine works were brand new to him and the church at that time. 2) You said that this work was to keep for the future church. However, this disagrees with the writers of Scripture, such as Jude, who wrote, "I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all" (Jude 1:3). Peter also wrote something similar, "His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness" (2Pet 1:3). According to these writers, all we need for faith, which includes the completed Scriptures, was already delivered once for all at the end of the first century. Again, thanks for the info, but I believe it would be rash to believe that the Clementine works were written by Clement of Rome or are the truth of God. But I would never stop people from reading these works and gain some insight from them. Thanks for discussing this with me. Keep it up if you want. God bless you! :)
Just because a work of religious writing was not included in our New Testament Cannon does not mean it's false or useless. Since your channel is dedicated to such work, I assume you agree. The point I was wanting to make, is that James was working under the agenda of combining the writings for it to be of some value in the future. According to the fourth century Catholic historian Eusebius, James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour...But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella...until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision[7] So notice that it is recognized by the leading Catholic historian that the first and early second century Christian leaders in Jerusalem were all circumcized Jews and that these early bishops "received the knowledge of Christ in purity". Thus, their teachings should have been continued. Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi wrote that, Nazarenes were the direct descendants of the Christian community of Jerusalem which migrated to Pella prior to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem "Nazarenes" according to Epiphanius "fulfill till now such Jewish rites as the Sabbath." [8]? The Nazarenes ended up in "synagogues of the East" ( Asia Minor) according to the Catholic priest Jerome. The history of the Nazarenes can be traced, however to put it simply, the movement essentially died off as changes and compromises were introduced and Christianity became what it is today.
historian E. Gibbon states: The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian... When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria
Unnecessary jab at the Roman Catholic church. Clement didn't place his name in the epistle because the audience had to have known who it was from, otherwise, they would have no regard for it.
It was not my intention to insult the Roman Catholic Church. However, I do feel it is important to remind people that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome never existed until the last fourth century. What you said about why Clement left his name off the letter... I believe that is a fair argument. Other pre-Nicene Christians and Eusebius believed this to an extent. On the other hand, Paul, who was more famous in the church than Clement, always put his name in his letters. Thank you for commenting and pointing those things out. God bless!
Thanks for the link. First, the arguments the link makes for the primacy of the bishop of Rome are all arguments from silence. That is, it doesn't provide any actual (explicit) evidence. Second, I visited the accompanying article (link below). There are only four quotations from before the Council of Nicaea, which is the time period that I am concerned about. (Certainly, if there was a primacy of Rome from the beginning, then it would be clear from the first 3 centuries of Christianity.) Of those four quotes, none of them address whether or not there is a primacy at Rome. www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4d.htm God bless!
Thanks for the comment! Excellent question! I think they believe this because of style differences between 1 Clement and 2 Clement. I'm sure some of these scholars are able to read the actual Greek and notice things like that. I do not know Greek, so I cannot say. I haven't found any objective evidence to this belief. I believe 2 Clement was written by Clement of Rome for a few reasons. One, the belief that Clement of Rome did not write it is a very recent belief. Two, Eusebius wrote about 2 Clement, saying that Clement of Rome is certainly the author (Church History, book 3, chapter 38, paragraph 4). This reason is the only objective evidence. Third, I've read both of the letters and I see some familiar phrases between them and a similar approach to teaching about Christ. My impression (again, not from the Greek but from the English) is that they have the same author: Clement of Rome.
Thank you. I have been reading a book with the writings the early church fathers, and 2 Clement was left out of the book. The translator, Andrew Louth, honestly believes that Clement did not write it. I guess I will have to read 2 Clement online.
***** I have a few of the early Christians works in PDF which are taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. They were translated before 1900, so it is an older English, but it is also public domain. You can find 2 Clement and more here. drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-itb1POnZDLamctdldMNGNRR0U&usp=sharing
Yes, I originally planned to make a video on Clement (as a writer; this video), a video on 1 Clement, and a video on 2 Clement. However, I decided not to. I still plan to do something special for 2 Clement, but I have no plans to do a video on 1 Clement. I could still do one, if enough folks request it.
I like that you highlighted that St. Clement never claimed to have authority outside of Rome , I don't know why the Catholic Church claim that the Pope should rule the world , every City has it's own bishop or later on known as Pope and never rules all the Churches all over the world , so that they do not accuse other Traditional Churches that they are outside the Catholic Church and there is no salvation out of their Church , that is a heresy !
Because at that time Christianity had not spread outside of Rome. The bishop of Rome was first among equals along with the other bishops. The Bishop of Rome had authority over the entire Western church. Whatever challenges exist between the Eastern and Western church is all political. Don't let your faith be swayed. The Bishop of Rome always had more authority than the other bishops because the bishop of Rome presides on the seat of Peter. Let the east and the west work out their differences. That's what we should be praying for. Name calling gets nothing accomplished
@@thomasdonohue1833 I can't find evidence on that brother , I see that every Church has it's own bishop even in the councils the bishops gather together from all countries , you know i am Coptic and the Coptic Church St. Mark established , yours St. Peter established , so why saying that only Pope of Rome rules all the Churches , anyway i love the Traditional Catholic Church also and i pray for unity , but i dont like the fact that some Catholics consider Orthodox Churches outside of faith lol , and they don't like professing some Miracles that occur in Orthodox Churches as (Holy Fire and Apparitions of St. Mary in Egypt as in Zeitun 1968 most popular one seen by over million , in Shubra Papadouplo 1986 , in Warraq 2009) as i dont deny Our Lady of Fatima , Lourdes and others and i love them
@@thomasdonohue1833 very uneducated statement. They were first called Christians in Antioch. And what of Polycarp and what of Antipas? Just wow. I cannot believe you actually think Christianity did not exist outside of Rome. So historically inaccurate.
@@christfollower5713 - Read Eric Ybarra's book he makes a very very compelling case. Furthermore, Metropolitan Koalistos Ware (RIP) said indeed that the Bishop of Rome is indeed first among equals; the issue is how much authority over the other Holy Sees does he have. There was never a question of the Authority of the Seat of Peter- East or West, only how much authority there is.
Jesus is human and divine his church is visible and spiritual if you have to find Jesus church in a spiritual church how can you find it? The church that Jesus founded is totally visible like the lhouse sitting on top of the hill
In other words, the Pope.....Peter, Linus, Cletus (or anacletus), CLEMENT, Sixtus, Cornelius, shall I go on???
5 лет назад+4
There was no pope. Did you not hear reading? Clement considered himself as equal to the all others. You, man, elevated others and put them on a pedestal, and worship him as the vicar of christ, or antichrist. There is no poope!!!
@@HistoryandReviews your proof being??/ He was Bishop of Rome, Pope is simply based on the Italian word for Papa...www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/peter-the-rock
John in his gospel simply identifies himself as," the disciple who Jesus loved." He does not say, Im an apostle. Later he describes himself as an elder in his epistles. You are showing your denomination in your words and being bias. We know the writers of the gospels because the Church told us... Some say," just read the gospels it states who wrote it in the first verse." But this is not in the original text. The church told us who wrote these. Thank God the CHURCH saved these letters and we can read them today. Protestants were not even in the horizon. Paul only revealed he was an apostle because he had to... Clements letter was authoritative.
meaning whoever wrote 1st clement knew paul since he wrote similar to paul we also know that clement and paul were both in italy aka rome at similar times 64 to 54 ad which is when clement wrote
we have two people who write similarly are in rome at the same time and they both say they know each other and one of them makes mention of the others writings and even writes to the churches they write to
Very true. Sola Scriptura was not the approach of the Pre-Nicene Church. To clarify, it was the canon of 27 books that was compiled in the 4th century. But the 27 books themselves were always available to the entire church. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Actually yes and no, the bishops deliberated precisely because of the various apocrypha books being read and circulated in the churches. So the Church councils of the Catholic Church, the only Christian church at the time, decided in the late 4th century which of the books were genuine. See the Council of Carthage (397), Council of Carthage (382) and the decree of Pope Damasus.
@@DamnControl5 Those councils happened, but they were unnecessary. When it comes to the Apocrypha and the canon of the Old Testament, that canon was solidified by the Pre-Nicene Church, long before any council. And their canon was the same canon as the Septuagint, which was entire church's Old Testament. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church left the apostolic tradition and stopped using the Septuagint around the time of those councils. The Catholic Church commissioned Jerome to make the Latin Vulgate, in which Jerome did not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch We are speaking of the New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament was solidified after the Council of Nicea. The Septuagint was never about the 27 NT books. There was no time in the Apostolic Fathers that they held the Protestant beliefs we have today if that is what you are implying. Why are you discrediting the councils when they were the ones who compiled the 27 New Testament? The Protestants never compiled the 27 books of the NT.
@@PostApostolicChurch You can never say it was unnecessary. It was because of these councils that the 27 NT books we have today were declared authoritative. The 27 books did not compile themselves nor fell from heaven already compiled. I am sure you believe that the Bible did not fall from heaven.
Anglicanism have no valid apostolic succession, so that been said if a church is not founded by an apostolic successor is definitely not the church Jesus founded since His church is founded on the apostles and there successors. As stated in Ephesians 2, 20 20built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,r with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.*
It's exciting to look for the church that Jesus founded! The apostles and their successors carried on Jesus' true teaching. It's for this reason why I love the Pre-Nicene Church, because they were the successors to the apostles. When it comes to the church Jesus founded, one of the passages I think about is that Jesus' church isn't visible (apostolic succession is something visible). Luke 17:20-21. Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God will come, He answered them, “The Kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; no one will say, ‘Look here!’ or ‘There!’ For you see, the Kingdom of God is within you.” Though the successors to the apostles wrote about apostolic succession, they did not say it was required. Tertullian saw how some heretics (Gnostics) actually had apostolic succession because some of their bishops and elders fell away to Gnosticism. Secondly, with different Christian groups claiming apostolic succession, which one is the true one? Because of these two reasons, I don't rely on apostolic succession as a sign of the church Jesus founded. But I could be wrong. What do you think? Thanks for dicussing this with me. May we continue reaching to best understand God's truth. :) God bless!
Thank you for asking. You mentioned a lot of things, but I will share with you the short answer. As I discovered and read the writings of the Pre-Nicene Christians, I see that the Church in those first centuries was different from today's Catholic Church. If you would like to have a deeper conversation about this subject, I would enjoy discussing these things with you. God bless!
God bless you too, John. I appreciate you commenting and discussing these things. Again, you shared a lot of things. I will quickly mention a few things that the Catholic Church believes which were not beliefs for the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Canonized Scripture. The Catholic Church did not canonize Scripture. The closest thing that happened with canon was with Athanasius' list in the mind-300s. But before this, there was no canon for Scripture other than the translation the church used. It was the Greek Septuagint. What the Western Church did in the 300s was depart from the established translation of Scripture and adopt a new set of Scriptures called the Latin Vulgate, which was commissioned by the Western Church to Jerome. They departed from the apostolic tradition of accepting the Septuagint by going to the Jews (who had already changed their own canon) for a new version of the Old Testament. In short, the Catholic Church has a different Old Testament than what the church had in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Mary. The earliest Christians did teach about the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, the immaculate conception was foreign to the first 3 centuries of Christianity. This is a new (not apostolic) belief that the Catholic Church officially established in the mid-1800s. It was never taught in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Purgatory. Please know that Purgatory is VERY different than the belief of Hades. Purgatory is a belief unique to the Catholic Church. It would have been completely rejected by the church of the first 3 centuries. The Catholic Church officially established the idea of Purgatory in the 1400s. Of course, it was the beliefs about Purgatory that lead to the belief about Indulgences. And the abuse of Indulgences lead to the Protestant Reformation. Veneration of Saints and Icons. Probably the biggest difference in today's Catholic Church and the church from the first 3 centuries is the veneration of the saints and icons. This current practice of praying TO saints and bowing/signing to icons was completely foreign to the earliest Christians. In fact, through the first 3 centuries, the Christians everywhere wrote how this is idolatry. During that time, the veneration of saints and icons would have been blasphemy and those practicing such things would have been excommunicated from the church! Of all the things the modern Catholic Church does, this one is the most opposite of what the early church believed, taught, and practiced. In other words, the Church Fathers explicitly condemned these practices as heresy. If you have any thoughts or questions about these things, I'll be happy to discuss them further with you. God bless!
About the canon of scripture I hope this will help you with your studies. www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/canon-of-the-holy-scriptures www.catholic.com/canon-of-scripture
IN THE BEGINIG THE WORD WAS WITH GOD THE WORD BEING DECIDED ON THE WORD WAS GOD THE WORD CHOSEN THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT JUST NEED THE THINGS TO MAKE THAT SO HAVE RESPECT FOR WORDS TRUP IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM YOU COME OUT LOOKING LIKE AN ASS
The early Christians did talk about Peter as the foremost apostle. They would describe Peter as the first among equals. And many, many Christians through those first few centuries thought the same as the Bishop of Rome... that he was the first among equals. This was especially true for Tertullian who lived in Carthage. Because of where he lived, he felt that he could appeal to the church in Rome for help. However, the early Christians did not discuss the primacy of Peter (that he was the head of the church). The first time this began to surface seems to be in Tertullian's day when Stephen of Rome claimed to have authority over the church--because he is the successor of Peter. Terullian said that he was not the head of the church and was NOT in the place of apostolic authority. In Terullians letters between himself and Firmilian, they were very harsh against Stephen because Stephen was trying to control the church. They said that though Stephen may be a successor of Peter, he did not have the authority over the whole church--he only had complete authority over the church in Rome. Tertullian and Firmilian said that the bishop of Rome is to be equals among the other bishops. Historically, the first time the primacy of Peter/Rome became accepted was near the end of the 300s AD. It did not exist in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Thanks for asking and God bless! Feel free to ask more questions. :)
Post-Apostolic Church Well, thank you. 🤗 Well, Tertullian did say to the heretic's at the time that he wouldn't give them a hearing if they didn't have apostolic succession? He told them to roll back there Bishop's, and even if they can do that, where abouts is there successions? St Augustine said the same and lined every Bishop of Rome right to perter, and said that there is no Donatists among them? I would say the chair of Peter. Did the Pope over see the canon of scripture? St irenaeus of lyon said that all churchs must agree with the church of Rome? At Ignatius of Antioch said that the bishop presides of the people then his letter to the Romans he gives all this praise to the church in Rome and he said that the church presides in love, presides over the over churchs. They all believed in Baptismal regenation, Mary as the new Eve, all the old churchs had alters and relic's of saints, which is either orthodox or Catholic, but they all believed that contraception was wrong which now only leaves one, the Catholic church.
Clement as bishop of Rome is equal in authority to his fellow presybiters in the church of Rome. WRONG. The office of Bishop is over that of his presbyters (priests). Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome. Also he was ordained a priest by St. Peter himself. 1. Bishop (overseer) 2. Presbyter (priest) 3. Deacon
Thanks for commenting. I think this is worthy of discussion! From the writings of the early Christians, the office of the bishop being over the office of the presbyter did not appear until Ignatius. In 1 Clement, Clement used the words for bishop and presbyter interchangeably. From their writings, the higher role of a bishop did not become commonplace until the end of the second century. I could be missing some evidence that the office of bishop was higher than the office of presbyter in the first century. Do you know of any?
PRESBYTER , PRESBUTEROS MEANS AN OLD MAN OR ELDER .THIS DID NOT MEAN PRIEST ,=HIEREUS ONE WHO OFFERS A SACRIFICE WAS NEVER USED OF AN OFFICE IN THE CHURCH , UNTIL CHANGED BY THE R.C. CHURCH.
@@PostApostolicChurch The bishop is the highest order in any city. It is the bishop who ordains the priests and deacons. It is the bishop who sends letters to other bishops. It is the bishop that confirms. It is the bishop that oversees the Diocese/Eparchy to make sure that the apostolic tradition is maintained. Bishop Priest Deacon
Here we go with more Christian bullshit. There used to be 2 letters by Clement. In 1850 one of them was exposed as a fraud. In other words, one letter, undated and unsigned, is all we have from Clement. What garbage. Ireneus made up this bullshit and you preach it like it were true.
The "evidence" that discredits Clement of Rome as the author of 2Clement is not sufficient. I have looked into all the reason why Clement didn't write 2Clement, and the reasons do not hold much water. During the first few centuries of Christianity (which is the most ancient witness), it was believed that Clement of Rome wrote 2Clement. I'm not going to say that Clement is the author beyond any doubt, but I will more easily believe the most ancient witnesses than current scholars.
Post-Apostolic Church+ What witnesses? Clement 1 and 2 are both unsigned and undated. And worse, they were "discovered" by a proven liar and forger Ireneus. Ireneus was a heretic hunter, a mafia underling who came to power thru the assassination of his predecessor while he was hobnobbing with the pope in Rome. His job was to shove Christianity down the throats of his constituents through torture. You are too smart to fall for this bull.
Yes, 1Clement and 2Clement are undated. 1Clement is signed by the church in Rome, where Clement of Rome was a bishop. For the same reason we believe Ephesians (which is not signed) was written by Paul and we believe the Illiad (which is not signed) was written by Homer, from other witnesses from the same time period explain who the author was of these books. Granted, the author of 2Clement is much more obscure, it was fairly common to believe that Clement of Rome wrote it. Eusebius says this, but also says that he could not find any hard evidence that Clement of Rome wrote it. If someone wishes to believe that Clement of Rome did not write 2Clement, that is fine with me. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Clement#Authorship)
Fair enough, keep up the good work on these videos. There are a lot of mythicists/atheist on you tube who are trying to re-write the history of the church. Appreciate your defense of the faith.
Yeah
Hardly, he is putting a Presbyterian spin on the early church
@@glennlanham6309 Yes, as an orthodox Christian I agree. At the time of my comment, Mythicism was a huge cult on youtube. I felt the video pushed back on the absurdity of it.
@@glennlanham6309 this RUclipsr ?
Those mystics are called Charismatics, they are Neo-Montanists.
Love the Early Church Fathers, thank you for sharing!
I've found 9 pre-nicene writings, from Ireneaus in 180 AD, explicitly affirming the authority of the Bishop of Rome over all churches:
- Clement of Alexandra
-Tertullian
-The Letter of Clement to James
-Origin
- Cyprian of Carthage
-The Martyrs of Lyons
-Ireneaus
-Firmilian
-The Clementine Homilies
I've only found one writing explicitly refuting the authority of the Bishop of Rome
- Cyprian of Carthage (also affirmed the papacy in another writing of his)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
The Pre Nicene fathers were clear- The Bishop of Rome was in a position of authority.
Explicit affirmation by man.
Well...
there's a glass of kool-aid for you.
@@richlopez5896 : The Church was built on Peter's cofession that Jesus was rhe Christ, the Son of God, NOT on Peter.
@@VoiceofTruth-iv8pq From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas“). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.” In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
Albert Barnes
Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
John Broadus
Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].
Craig L. Blomberg
Contemporary Baptist
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
J. Knox Chamblin
Contemporary Presbyterian
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. France
Contemporary Anglican
“The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
Herman Ridderbos
Contemporary Dutch Reformed
“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].
Donald Hagner
Contemporary Evangelical
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). The startling thing was that-aside from the single time that Abraham is called a “rock” (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2.
Two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city-an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost-meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
this is the best of all RUclips channels. I love you channel creator ❤
St. Clemens ora pro nobis🙏✝️
He can’t hear you nor read this
@@albusai facts
It's funny how Protestants actually believe themselves to be Christians and to possess the same faith as the Early Church Fathers since if they actually took the time to read about their beliefs they would realise that the Fathers would condemn them as heretical.
www.churchfathers.org/
ruclips.net/p/PLGVSKByrYzsufIKilFHFUDlvpSYFlSuvT
@@albusaihe can
False, ignore the dummy that said facts @@albusai
Thank you for the links to all the PDF's. God bless!
If Clement had no jurisdiction over Corinth then why did they ask him for advice if he had no authority . The early Church went to Peter this tradition was carried on by Clement .
It is not known why the Corinthian church wrote to the church in Rome. Sadly, we don't have their letter. We don't know the true reason why they wrote to Clement.
There are many good reasons we could come up with as to why they wrote. (1) My first thought is they wrote to Rome because that was the last place Paul was before he died. Paul was the Corinthian church's spiritual father. I imagine the presbyters who were there wanted to contact the church leader who personally knew Paul (which was Clement). (2) Another thought is that the Corinthian church wrote to many church leaders. It is possible that they also wrote to Ignatius or Polycarp, students of the apostle John. If they did, none of the letters between them survived.
As far as jurisdiction and authority, this idea did not really begin until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There were strong centers of the Church, like Rome, but none of the churches had authority over other churches.
As far as the early church going to Peter for spiritual teaching, I am sure this is true. However, they didn't go to Peter any more than they went to Paul and John. In other words, the early Church, as a whole, did not favor one apostle over another. Of course, in matters of sound doctrine, the apostles did not differ.
Post-Apostolic Church If I meant Peshitta I'd have said Peshitta.
Do you not know the difference?
Post-Apostolic Church The Homilies and Recognitions isn't the Peshitta, the Peshitta is the Syriac NT and is not very old compared to the H&R of Clement.
It was written in Syriac aka Christian Aramaic making it the only Aramaic language MS in Christianity from ancient times.
It's likely more true historically than and older than if not what was replaced by the farcical Acts which was only written to fool people into believing that the James and Peter sect of Nazarenes were friends and agreed with the anti Torah/Law teachings of Paul, as well as his do nothing but still be "saved" faith alone justifies us nonsense.
"Foolish man, do you want to be told, faith without works is dead?"
James brother of Jesus pbuh engaging in a pol-emic against Paul using the exact same passage about Abraham that Paul used, but in refutation.
Christianity is intolerant, and it's because Paul was a jerk, insulting the Apostles as "False Apostles of Christ"..."No wonder even Satan appears as an angel of light."
This is always denied by Christians but scholars and competent exegetes examining it in context know better as a. Who else could he be taking about that he had issues with that are Apostles of Christ without just making up the existence of hitherto unknown false apostles.
Paul did this because "All those who are in Asia have turned from me."
"To the 7 Churches of Asia..."
"...those who say they ate Apostles and are not, and are liars."
Jesus to Ephesus congratulating them for rejecting the only provably false apostle in the Bible who claims to be what "God appointed" Peter to be "Apostle to the Gentiles" and as I said God doesn't make mistakes but Paul does lie.
Vision of New Jerusalem revealed that there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb.
Matthias replaced Judas and that we have proof Paul doesn't qualify according to his own companion Luke is undeniably in Acts in the mouth of the real Apostle to the Nations/Gentiles Simon Cepha. So if someone replaced John it'd have to be the loser in the lot drawing of Acts. Codex Bezae says it's Barnabas Justus/Zaddik, but it can't be Paul and since Revelation says 12 it's not possible as Matthias replacement of Judas needs him to be the last in order not to contradict Revelation.
Post-Apostolic Church The Homilies and Recognitions isn't the Peshitta, the Peshitta is the Syriac NT and is not very old compared to the H&R of Clement.
It was written in Syriac aka Christian Aramaic making it the only Aramaic language MS in Christianity from ancient times.
It's likely more true historically than and older than if not what was replaced by the farcical Acts which was only written to fool people into believing that the James and Peter sect of Nazarenes were friends and agreed with the anti Torah/Law teachings of Paul, as well as his do nothing but still be "saved" faith alone justifies us nonsense.
"Foolish man, do you want to be told, faith without works is dead?"
James brother of Jesus pbuh engaging in a pol-emic against Paul using the exact same passage about Abraham that Paul used, but in refutation.
Christianity is intolerant, and it's because Paul was a jerk, insulting the Apostles as "False Apostles of Christ"..."No wonder even Satan appears as an angel of light."
This is always denied by Christians but scholars and competent exegetes examining it in context know better as a. Who else could he be taking about that he had issues with that are Apostles of Christ without just making up the existence of hitherto unknown false apostles.
Paul did this because "All those who are in Asia have turned from me."
"To the 7 Churches of Asia..."
"...those who say they ate Apostles and are not, and are liars."
Jesus to Ephesus congratulating them for rejecting the only provably false apostle in the Bible who claims to be what "God appointed" Peter to be "Apostle to the Gentiles" and as I said God doesn't make mistakes but Paul does lie.
Vision of New Jerusalem revealed that there are only 12 Apostles of the Lamb.
Matthias replaced Judas and that we have proof Paul doesn't qualify according to his own companion Luke is undeniably in Acts in the mouth of the real Apostle to the Nations/Gentiles Simon Cepha. So if someone replaced John it'd have to be the loser in the lot drawing of Acts. Codex Bezae says it's Barnabas Justus/Zaddik, but it can't be Paul and since Revelation says 12 it's not possible as Matthias replacement of Judas needs him to be the last in order not to contradict Revelation.
Thanks for sharing your views. God bless.
Good video. Thanks for the information. My only issue is that at 4:00 you speculate about Clement's papal authority which seems out of place in an otherwise historical essay.
I found it odd as well that they seemed to try to diminish his authority yet it was the Corinthians that appealed to him. If Clement wasnt in fact in a position of Authority over the Church then why wouldnt the Greek Corinthians appeal to the Church in Constantinople and fellow Greeks? I detect a bit of bias........
@@ragnardanneskajold1880im assuming the person who made this video was skeptical of that, the Catholic Church absolutely identifies clement being the pope at the time and they have their reasons to, He’s included on the timeline of canon popes from the apostolic era.
4:04 wow, 2000 years of Catholic theology debookned.
If 2 Clement would have made it into the canonic bible text, it would have been direct proof of the deity of Christ. It starts with the words: "Brethren, it is fitting that you would think of Jesus Christ as of God, - as the judge of the living and the dead."
Great point! God bless.
Thank you, I like your video's very much. I haven't watched them all yet but it's very interesting to find out what the early church fathers believed. GBU!
Some scholars suggest an even earlier date for 1 Clement, around AD 70. Regardless, it is one of, if not the earliest writing outside the NT.
The letter quotes to or alludes to other NT works .
It says nothiong about the triune God and so clearly is very early.
Peter, Linus, Anancletes, clement were first four fathers (pope's) to the Christian people just as Shebna & Eliakim were also fathers ( popes ) to the kings people until the king returns & they too held the keys of the kingdom as we see Christ quotes directly from Is 22:15 when makin Peter his Shepard (vicar) over His people until he returns..This perpetual office is explained in detail in Isaiah and 1st kings
2:34, quotation of Clement.
Clement sat in the 'Chair of Peter' ( Jerome - Letters 15:1 [ A.D. 396] ). That is why the Corinthians wrote to him asking to settle the matter. Like Peter in Acts 15 once Clement weighed in the Matter was settled. The Chair of Peter supplants and is superior to the Chair of Moses due to Christ revealed and His charge to Peter.
Yes and at that time the apotle John was still alive right?
You will never find any letter were the Bishop of Rome says he is Pope, but others appeal to His authority which is recognised throughout the world..If you read AGAINST HERESIES, you will read in it a history of the Church & all the successors of Peter..All the Bishops like the apostles are equally Bishops but by a special charism, Peter & His successors are recognised as having final authority as we see in the 1st council of Jerusalem-Peter speaks & all agree..If no1 has authority then we cnt accept the canon of scripture as there was varying groups who didnt agree on what books belonged but all agreed once the Pope made his authoritative decision & Augustine said if not for Peter's successors, he could never agree on a canon..Without an authoritative Church u get the protestant Church but yet the Catholic Church is THE OLDEST INSTITUTION IN THE WORLD, even recognised as so by 27 eastern Churches who are once again in full communion with her..
Aude Sapere Peter was the first Pope and Clement was the 2nd Pope. They didn’t know it. If you laugh at that idea, do you think anyone who fought in the First World War, knew they were engaged in the First World war? Those that were fighting the 2nd world war didn’t realize it either. They referred to the First World War as the “Great War”. It wasn’t until some time after 1945 that the two wars could be seen for what they were and named as such. Likewise for the first Bishops of Rome.
@@gondolacrescent5 Peter who was martyred by the Romans, was a Pope? he would be weeping at such a pagan idea.
@@Hebrew42Day That he would.
To claim that the Papacy- a doctrine rooted in the teachings of the Old and New Testaments- is "pagan" is blasphemy. For you claim that Christ's teachings are "pagan". I dare you to actually investigate the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers and what the Bible actually teaches. You will not be saved Protestants, I say this in charity.
www.churchfathers.org
ruclips.net/video/6KV6PXSODgE/видео.html
Peter wasn’t a pope
Authority yes but the least is the most and not to impose authority over others Jesus washed peters feet! Show humility humbleness and servant! When people wanted to worship the apostles they ran out and tore their clothes shouting they are just fellow men!
You're comment on Clement and the Papacy is one from silence and you assume that he did not hold the Primacy. The fact is Irenaeaus listed the successors of Peter that includes Clement. Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome to hold the keys to the kingdom.
Good call.
You likewise have to make an argument from silence that He _WAS_ the Pope and head of the whole Christian church. Along with subsequent overseers up to the state takeover of the faith delivered to the Saints.
You cannot come to the conclusion that the early church was *ANYTHING* like the Roman Catholic Church then or now. (post Augustine)
It's a completely different animal.
@prairie mark And Paul had to correct Peter to his face for his error. Galatians 2:11-14. No, Peter was no poope. He was an apostle but no higher rank than that... Anything else attributed to Peter, etc is man made and bullshit. The catholics now love to worship the poope, mary, dead saints, etc. The poope is no Christ and he is sinful as the rest of us. Be careful, that you don't elevated sinful man above GOD, like the catholics love to do.
@prairie mark no where in the Bible does it say to worship Mary or to treat her at the same level as God yet the Catholics do it. Also we have direct access to God through the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us regenerate believers that are born again, not of flesh and blood but od Spirit and Truth. Go read your new testament. Catholicism is man made theology trying to elevate the pope and man to a higher rank than he should be. We have direct access to God. We do not need a Catholic priest mediator. We are priests unto God (Peter says that in his 2 epistles.)
prairie mark Amen
The name Clement was quite common and therefore provides no valid basis for connecting him with Clement of Rome, as is done by Origen.
I encourage to read the book Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett.
God bless you and keep you.
Origin wrote a whole chapter on Peter’s primacy. There’s a lot of evidence of Clement of Rome. Many writings of him in the early church
@@CPATuttle There's no proof he is the same Clement as the one mentionned by Paul
@@JasonJacksonJames is there proof Jesus existed?
No proof? Stop reading 21st century Protestant books that tell you this bs. Atheists use the same talking points
Origen (In Joann. 1, 29), Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III. 15), Epiphanius (Hær., XXVII. 6), and Jerome (De Vir. III.) identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv. 3), making him a special pupil of Paul. This supposition Chrysostom carries still further (Comm. in 1 Tim.), speaking of Clement as the steady companion of Paul on all his travels; while the Clementine literature, in harmony with its Judeo-Christian character, brings him in the closest connection with Peter, and makes him his most intimate pupil.
Great content thank you
I believe that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is the writer of this letter. However, another interesting point is that some Biblical Scholars believe that two of the messengers in chapter 65 - Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, looking at Claudian and Valerian families importance in Rome at the time, they might have been servants in "Caesar's household" mentioned in Philippians 4:22.
That's very interesting and cool. Thank you for sharing!
Not all scholars agree that this Clement was the one referred to by the apostle in the New Testament. The Catholic Church views Clement of Rome as the second or third bishop or pope of Rome. He is one of the first men to advocate "Apostolic Succession" and the "order of the priesthood." His quotes on the orders reflect a first century forgery that had the apostles visited by an invisible Jesus, who laid hands on the apostles and conferred the "Moses/Aaron" priesthood upon them. One can readily see that this man was far from Holy Spirit inspiration when he quotes on "the Phoenix Bird" who traveled to the city of the "sun."
3:09, 4:13, the early church believed 1Clement to be divinely inspired, but later changed.
prairie mark yes, that’s true. But when you read the book of I Clement with the eye of faith, you can quickly determine that it is NOT a divinely inspired book of Holy Scripture!
4:33, II Clement is the oldest sermon in the Christian Church, but it is not divinely inspired.
@prairie mark yes. I should rephrase what I said before because I wrote it in haste: a work like Clement's can be inspired but not infallible like the Bible.
prairie mark That’s true; but if you need to remember,brother,the Historical Orthodox principal: a work can be inspired but not necessarily infallible like the Holy Scriptures.
prairie mark Allow me to elaborate on what I stated earlier: the Historic Orthodox principle is that a work can be inspired but not necessarily infallible like the Holy Scriptures
I need to ask this question if you could reply to this. Is it possible that Clement of Rome knew who Sosthenes that is in 1st Corinthians 1:1. I am very curious about this. Or is the timeline to far apart for these 2 to know each other?
Thank you 🌞🌞🌞
Thanks for the Videos - i tried to look for the video where you mentioned that a bishop has the same office as the bishop of rome.
Can you please help me with that link .
That is a good question. I also thought it was this video. Perhaps it was my introduction video. Or maybe I said it in a comment? I'm sorry that I don't remember. God bless!
Can someone tell me which church have bishops, presbiters and dicons today?
Thanks for asking. I can better answer your question if you explained more about what you are looking for. God be with you! Please let me know if my reply isn't what you are looking for.
Every Christian group does their leadership differently. Churches that do NOT have bishops/presbyters/deacons include Lutherans, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I could be wrong, but I believe these groups use the Pastor system.
Perhaps this will help:
- Catholicism has those roles and adds the Pope.
- Orthodoxy has those roles and adds Patriarchs.
- Anglicanism, Calvinism, and Methodism have these roles; and there have councils that oversee all churches under each of them.
- Anabaptists (Mennonite/Amish) and Restorationism have these roles, saying that bishop and presbyter is the same role; and each individual congregation is self-governing (no councils).
I guess my next question could be which one of all of the ones you mentioned have apostolic succession
All churches within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism have apostolic succession.
You can find apostolic succession in some of the others, but it it is rare and hard to find.
Though Pentecostals do not have a bishop/elder/deacon leadership system, there are some groups of Pentecostals that have apostolic succession.
Only the catholic and orthodox church have apostolic sucession the Anglican church does not have apostolic sucession and no other church that was born out of the reformation have apostolic sucession.
@Read Father Seraphim Rose
So you are trying to tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't have apostolic sucesión, 🙄 really try again.
4:23, 2 Clement.
Did Clemente include any prayers to Mary or call her the Queen of heaven?
Thank you for commenting. God forbid!!! During the Pre-Nicene period of the church, if any Christian prayed to Mary or called her the queen of heaven would have been quickly excommunicated as a heretic. God bless you.
If Clement did not have papal authority, how is it that he was settling problems in Corinth when there were two episcopal seats much closer? Nor would a mere presbyter (prebst/priest) have had any such authority.
Thank you for commenting and great question. When I read through 1Clement, I didn't see that Clement's letter was to settle problems. Unlike Paul, who addressed the problem and exercised his weight as an apostle, Clement's letter doesn't really address the problem very much. From what I read, Clement didn't exercise any weight as an authority over other churches. What I see Clement doing is giving the Corinthian church a lot of advise. His main point is that they should be acting more like Christ as well as the heroes of faith of the past. In short, I didn't see any evidence of Clement showing any authority over the church in Corinth. It was like the church in Corinth wanted to hear Clement's input as an advisor.
@@PostApostolicChurch - He gave them kind and charitable advice in the letter, advice and or suggestion are subtle commands indeed. It seems to me that He told them to trust those who were put in authority over them and that He was telling them what to do in kind and subtle manner.
Do you still believe Clement wrote 2 Clement? I heard it quotes gnostic books so I never bothered to read it.
Thank you for commenting. There may always be a disagreement about who wrote 2Clement. But I believe Clement of Rome wrote it. I have heard 2Clement, and I don't remember any Gnostic quotes in it. Do you know of any statements in 2Clement that sound Gnostic? God bless you.
@@PostApostolicChurch The Wikipedia article implies 2 Clement quotes "The Gospel of Peter" & "The Gospel Of Thomas" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Clement
I haven't read it myself, but I think I will soon once I finish reading the works of Justin Martyr.
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV I see what you mean by those statements that seem to appear in both 2Clement and the Gospel of Thomas. If 2Clement was written by Clement of Rome, then those statements were FIRST given by 2Clement, and may have been "adopted" by the Gnostics. If 2Clement was written by someone else (and as late as 140 AD), then it is debatable which came first: 2Clement or the Gospel of Thomas.
Either way, after looking at the statement in 2Clement, that was such an interesting and mysterious statement. If Jesus really did say those words, then I guess that Jesus is referring to the final coming of the Kingdom, as Jesus said in Luke 20:34-36.
@@PostApostolicChurch wow, I didn't think of that! Thank you. When will your next video be done? I hope in the future you make a video regarding the ante nicene beliefs on Mary. God bless.
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJV Currently, I'm working on the next series: Early Christianity on the Son of God. As I do this research, I can tell it will take a while before the next video is ready. One day, many years from now, I hope to do a video on Mary. But it will be a very long time.
If Clement wasn’t a leader and wasn’t looked to as an authority then why did Greek Corinthians appeal to Him and not to the Bishop of Constantinople, a fellow Greek?
Thank you for commenting. Clement was a leader (presbyter) at the church in Rome. He was one of many presbyters. As 1Clement states at the beginning, the letter is from the church at Rome. People have credited Clement as the author, but the letter itself is addressed from "the Church at Rome."
Good question about why Corinth appealed to the church in Rome instead of Constantinople. I don't think anyone knows why. But my guess is that the church in Rome (under Clement and the other presbyters) had a very good reputation at the time. Additionally, while there was a church in Constantinople at the time, there was no such position of authority as the Bishop of Constantinople. For those two reasons, I would guess that the church in Rome was the most trusted church in the year 100 AD.
God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch - there was no Bishop at Constantinople in the 1st Century? That doesnt seem plausible but I would need to ask some Greek Orthodox Scholars about that as Apostolic Succession is extremely important to them and they have good records of the Bishops of the Holy Sees.
I think history demonstrates that the occupant of Peters Seat was first among equals and even the orthodox acknowledge that as Rome was appealed to time and again even from Constantinople later in Church History.
@@ragnardanneskajold1880 Yes, I would be very, very interested in what the Orthodox scholars say about that. From what I know about history, Constantinople didn't become a See until the Council of Nicaea. It was at the Council that the Church officially began a system of oversight by region. But I don't think this was the case in the first couple hundred years of Christianity. I think this is demonstrated by the example of Corinth writing to Clement and Rome (instead of Constantinople). I wish we had Corinth's letter to Clement/Rome. That would shed more light on our questions.
@@PostApostolicChurch - that would be great if that letter existed; maybe it does in the archives of Rome.
What about the "Recognitions of Clement?"
Thanks for asking. When it comes to the Clementine works, there is so much mystery behind them. The question I ask is: when does history first record that these writings existed? Eusebius said that he had heard of them but that the earliest Christians made no mention of them. This is in contrast to 1Clement, which is universally believed to be written by Clement of Rome. The Clementines have been generally regarded as non-orthodox. From my research, I suspect that these were written by the Ebionites in the late second century or third century, and they attributed it to Clement. The biggest evidence for this, I think, is that the origin of this book coincides with the rise of the Ebionites. And secondly, because there is no mention of the apostle Paul in the Clementines, or purposefully making Paul the "villain." To me, this is the biggest evidence against this work.
In short, I do not believe the Clementines were written by Clement of Rome. And I suspect that it was written by "unorthodox Christians," possibly the Ebionites. God bless!
However, if you read the document - it describes James commissioning Clement with the task of writing down his conversations and encounters with Peter, which he would send to James who presumably combined all the writings working under the agenda of essentially making "Scripture", a work of writings for the future church to use. Since James was highly associated with the Ebionites, it makes sense why the Ebionites would champion this document since it was made under the charge of James to Clement...Just my thoughts. I think it's also of note, that the Ebionites branched from the "Nazarenes" and the Catholic historians all agree the Nazarenes were the Original Jewish Christians. In Acts Paul was accused of being the ringleader of the Nazarenes:
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect" - Acts 24:5
Although the Ebionites held distorted doctrine, I would contend that since they came from the original Christians, that they very much operated the way the early Jewish Christian Church under the leadership of James would have operated. In other words, the Ebionites aren't entirely bad or "Unorthodox". They are only unorthodox relative to our Roman gentile expression of Christianity.
Yes Paul, during the time Clement would have been writing for James, was an enemy and persecuting the Church. The conversion would not have happened until later.
Thanks for sharing such good information. I appreciate the internal evidence and let the work defend itself.
1) If there was this agreement between James, Clement, and Peter happened, and they left the church to their predecessors, then why didn't any of those predecessors speak about this? As we see at the time of Eusebius, these Clementine works were brand new to him and the church at that time.
2) You said that this work was to keep for the future church. However, this disagrees with the writers of Scripture, such as Jude, who wrote, "I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all" (Jude 1:3). Peter also wrote something similar, "His divine power has given us everything required for life and godliness" (2Pet 1:3). According to these writers, all we need for faith, which includes the completed Scriptures, was already delivered once for all at the end of the first century.
Again, thanks for the info, but I believe it would be rash to believe that the Clementine works were written by Clement of Rome or are the truth of God. But I would never stop people from reading these works and gain some insight from them. Thanks for discussing this with me. Keep it up if you want. God bless you! :)
Just because a work of religious writing was not included in our New Testament Cannon does not mean it's false or useless. Since your channel is dedicated to such work, I assume you agree. The point I was wanting to make, is that James was working under the agenda of combining the writings for it to be of some value in the future.
According to the fourth century Catholic historian Eusebius,
James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour...But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella...until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision[7]
So notice that it is recognized by the leading Catholic historian that the first and early second century Christian leaders in Jerusalem were all circumcized Jews and that these early bishops "received the knowledge of Christ in purity". Thus, their teachings should have been continued.
Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi wrote that,
Nazarenes were the direct descendants of the Christian community of Jerusalem which migrated to Pella prior to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem "Nazarenes" according to Epiphanius "fulfill till now such Jewish rites as the Sabbath." [8]?
The Nazarenes ended up in "synagogues of the East" ( Asia Minor) according to the Catholic priest Jerome.
The history of the Nazarenes can be traced, however to put it simply, the movement essentially died off as changes and compromises were introduced and Christianity became what it is today.
historian E. Gibbon states:
The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.
They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian...
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria
Unnecessary jab at the Roman Catholic church. Clement didn't place his name in the epistle because the audience had to have known who it was from, otherwise, they would have no regard for it.
It was not my intention to insult the Roman Catholic Church. However, I do feel it is important to remind people that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome never existed until the last fourth century.
What you said about why Clement left his name off the letter... I believe that is a fair argument. Other pre-Nicene Christians and Eusebius believed this to an extent. On the other hand, Paul, who was more famous in the church than Clement, always put his name in his letters.
Thank you for commenting and pointing those things out. God bless!
Thanks for the link.
First, the arguments the link makes for the primacy of the bishop of Rome are all arguments from silence. That is, it doesn't provide any actual (explicit) evidence.
Second, I visited the accompanying article (link below). There are only four quotations from before the Council of Nicaea, which is the time period that I am concerned about. (Certainly, if there was a primacy of Rome from the beginning, then it would be clear from the first 3 centuries of Christianity.) Of those four quotes, none of them address whether or not there is a primacy at Rome.
www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/cf4d.htm
God bless!
Why do some scholars say that 2 Clement was not really written bt Clement?
Thanks for the comment! Excellent question!
I think they believe this because of style differences between 1 Clement and 2 Clement. I'm sure some of these scholars are able to read the actual Greek and notice things like that. I do not know Greek, so I cannot say. I haven't found any objective evidence to this belief.
I believe 2 Clement was written by Clement of Rome for a few reasons. One, the belief that Clement of Rome did not write it is a very recent belief. Two, Eusebius wrote about 2 Clement, saying that Clement of Rome is certainly the author (Church History, book 3, chapter 38, paragraph 4). This reason is the only objective evidence. Third, I've read both of the letters and I see some familiar phrases between them and a similar approach to teaching about Christ. My impression (again, not from the Greek but from the English) is that they have the same author: Clement of Rome.
Thank you. I have been reading a book with the writings the early church fathers, and 2 Clement was left out of the book. The translator, Andrew Louth, honestly believes that Clement did not write it. I guess I will have to read 2 Clement online.
***** I have a few of the early Christians works in PDF which are taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. They were translated before 1900, so it is an older English, but it is also public domain.
You can find 2 Clement and more here.
drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-itb1POnZDLamctdldMNGNRR0U&usp=sharing
Thank you!
+Sara K He makes strange quotes of things that aren't found in the New Testament. They aren't unsound biblically, but they're quite ambiguous.
The link to the books of Clement is not working.
Yes, I originally planned to make a video on Clement (as a writer; this video), a video on 1 Clement, and a video on 2 Clement. However, I decided not to. I still plan to do something special for 2 Clement, but I have no plans to do a video on 1 Clement. I could still do one, if enough folks request it.
make the introductions to 1st and 2nd clement, bring up the modalistic overtones
I like that you highlighted that St. Clement never claimed to have authority outside of Rome , I don't know why the Catholic Church claim that the Pope should rule the world , every City has it's own bishop or later on known as Pope and never rules all the Churches all over the world , so that they do not accuse other Traditional Churches that they are outside the Catholic Church and there is no salvation out of their Church , that is a heresy !
Because at that time Christianity had not spread outside of Rome. The bishop of Rome was first among equals along with the other bishops. The Bishop of Rome had authority over the entire Western church. Whatever challenges exist between the Eastern and Western church is all political. Don't let your faith be swayed. The Bishop of Rome always had more authority than the other bishops because the bishop of Rome presides on the seat of Peter. Let the east and the west work out their differences. That's what we should be praying for. Name calling gets nothing accomplished
@@thomasdonohue1833 I can't find evidence on that brother , I see that every Church has it's own bishop even in the councils the bishops gather together from all countries , you know i am Coptic and the Coptic Church St. Mark established , yours St. Peter established , so why saying that only Pope of Rome rules all the Churches , anyway i love the Traditional Catholic Church also and i pray for unity , but i dont like the fact that some Catholics consider Orthodox Churches outside of faith lol , and they don't like professing some Miracles that occur in Orthodox Churches as (Holy Fire and Apparitions of St. Mary in Egypt as in Zeitun 1968 most popular one seen by over million , in Shubra Papadouplo 1986 , in Warraq 2009) as i dont deny Our Lady of Fatima , Lourdes and others and i love them
@@thomasdonohue1833 very uneducated statement. They were first called Christians in Antioch. And what of Polycarp and what of Antipas? Just wow. I cannot believe you actually think Christianity did not exist outside of Rome. So historically inaccurate.
@@christfollower5713 - Read Eric Ybarra's book he makes a very very compelling case. Furthermore, Metropolitan Koalistos Ware (RIP) said indeed that the Bishop of Rome is indeed first among equals; the issue is how much authority over the other Holy Sees does he have. There was never a question of the Authority of the Seat of Peter- East or West, only how much authority there is.
many of the videos the audio is very low very very low bad
Jesus is human and divine his church is visible and spiritual if you have to find Jesus church in a spiritual church how can you find it? The church that Jesus founded is totally visible like the lhouse sitting on top of the hill
You're right, and that visible church is The Holy Roman Catholic Church.
You're right, and that visible church is The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church.
It is Clemens not Clement
In other words, the Pope.....Peter, Linus, Cletus (or anacletus), CLEMENT, Sixtus, Cornelius, shall I go on???
There was no pope. Did you not hear reading? Clement considered himself as equal to the all others. You, man, elevated others and put them on a pedestal, and worship him as the vicar of christ, or antichrist. There is no poope!!!
One Two
Best of 12 rounds, I’ll refree, Protestant Vs Catholic... let’s go!
Lmao Peter WAS NOT a Pope
@@HistoryandReviews your proof being??/ He was Bishop of Rome, Pope is simply based on the Italian word for Papa...www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/peter-the-rock
as I showed above...those are the beginning lists of the First Bishops of Rome, most martyred..
John in his gospel simply identifies himself as," the disciple who Jesus loved." He does not say, Im an apostle. Later he describes himself as an elder in his epistles. You are showing your denomination in your words and being bias. We know the writers of the gospels because the Church told us... Some say," just read the gospels it states who wrote it in the first verse." But this is not in the original text. The church told us who wrote these. Thank God the CHURCH saved these letters and we can read them today. Protestants were not even in the horizon. Paul only revealed he was an apostle because he had to... Clements letter was authoritative.
Hasn't the Church been "post-apostolic" for nearly 2000 years?
LOL Technically, that is very true! Of course, my implication is that I'm referring to the time period immediately post-apostles.
OK, @@PostApostolicChurch. I'm enjoying your videos. Very helpful! :)
@@PostApostolicChurch Very true...
How can you say there is no papal authority in it? Are u bling?
Thank you for commenting. At the time of Clement of Rome, and even a hundred years after him, Rome had not claimed papal authority. God bless you!
There is no proof that Clement of Rome and the Clement of Philippians 4:3 are the same people
wrong
first hebrews and 1st clement are written very similarly
meaning whoever wrote 1st clement knew paul since he wrote similar to paul we also know that clement and paul were both in italy aka rome at similar times 64 to 54 ad which is when clement wrote
we have two people who write similarly are in rome at the same time and they both say they know each other and one of them makes mention of the others writings and even writes to the churches they write to
also the name clement is only used once in the new testament showing that it was not a common roman name
These Fathers did not teach Sola Scriptura. Precisely because the 27 books of the New Testament was compiled in the late 4th century AD. Checkmate.
Very true. Sola Scriptura was not the approach of the Pre-Nicene Church. To clarify, it was the canon of 27 books that was compiled in the 4th century. But the 27 books themselves were always available to the entire church. God bless you!
@@PostApostolicChurch Actually yes and no, the bishops deliberated precisely because of the various apocrypha books being read and circulated in the churches. So the Church councils of the Catholic Church, the only Christian church at the time, decided in the late 4th century which of the books were genuine. See the Council of Carthage (397), Council of Carthage (382) and the decree of Pope Damasus.
@@DamnControl5 Those councils happened, but they were unnecessary. When it comes to the Apocrypha and the canon of the Old Testament, that canon was solidified by the Pre-Nicene Church, long before any council. And their canon was the same canon as the Septuagint, which was entire church's Old Testament. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church left the apostolic tradition and stopped using the Septuagint around the time of those councils. The Catholic Church commissioned Jerome to make the Latin Vulgate, in which Jerome did not consider the Apocrypha to be inspired. God bless!
@@PostApostolicChurch We are speaking of the New Testament. The Canon of the New Testament was solidified after the Council of Nicea. The Septuagint was never about the 27 NT books. There was no time in the Apostolic Fathers that they held the Protestant beliefs we have today if that is what you are implying.
Why are you discrediting the councils when they were the ones who compiled the 27 New Testament? The Protestants never compiled the 27 books of the NT.
@@PostApostolicChurch You can never say it was unnecessary. It was because of these councils that the 27 NT books we have today were declared authoritative. The 27 books did not compile themselves nor fell from heaven already compiled. I am sure you believe that the Bible did not fall from heaven.
Anglicanism have no valid apostolic succession, so that been said if a church is not founded by an apostolic successor is definitely not the church Jesus founded since His church is founded on the apostles and there successors. As stated in Ephesians 2, 20
20built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,r with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.*
It's exciting to look for the church that Jesus founded! The apostles and their successors carried on Jesus' true teaching. It's for this reason why I love the Pre-Nicene Church, because they were the successors to the apostles. When it comes to the church Jesus founded, one of the passages I think about is that Jesus' church isn't visible (apostolic succession is something visible).
Luke 17:20-21. Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God will come, He answered them, “The Kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; no one will say, ‘Look here!’ or ‘There!’ For you see, the Kingdom of God is within you.”
Though the successors to the apostles wrote about apostolic succession, they did not say it was required. Tertullian saw how some heretics (Gnostics) actually had apostolic succession because some of their bishops and elders fell away to Gnosticism. Secondly, with different Christian groups claiming apostolic succession, which one is the true one? Because of these two reasons, I don't rely on apostolic succession as a sign of the church Jesus founded.
But I could be wrong. What do you think? Thanks for dicussing this with me. May we continue reaching to best understand God's truth. :) God bless!
Thank you for asking. You mentioned a lot of things, but I will share with you the short answer. As I discovered and read the writings of the Pre-Nicene Christians, I see that the Church in those first centuries was different from today's Catholic Church. If you would like to have a deeper conversation about this subject, I would enjoy discussing these things with you. God bless!
@john i only have 1 question did the holy spirit fail?
God bless you too, John. I appreciate you commenting and discussing these things. Again, you shared a lot of things. I will quickly mention a few things that the Catholic Church believes which were not beliefs for the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Canonized Scripture. The Catholic Church did not canonize Scripture. The closest thing that happened with canon was with Athanasius' list in the mind-300s. But before this, there was no canon for Scripture other than the translation the church used. It was the Greek Septuagint. What the Western Church did in the 300s was depart from the established translation of Scripture and adopt a new set of Scriptures called the Latin Vulgate, which was commissioned by the Western Church to Jerome. They departed from the apostolic tradition of accepting the Septuagint by going to the Jews (who had already changed their own canon) for a new version of the Old Testament. In short, the Catholic Church has a different Old Testament than what the church had in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Mary. The earliest Christians did teach about the perpetual virginity of Mary. However, the immaculate conception was foreign to the first 3 centuries of Christianity. This is a new (not apostolic) belief that the Catholic Church officially established in the mid-1800s. It was never taught in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Purgatory. Please know that Purgatory is VERY different than the belief of Hades. Purgatory is a belief unique to the Catholic Church. It would have been completely rejected by the church of the first 3 centuries. The Catholic Church officially established the idea of Purgatory in the 1400s. Of course, it was the beliefs about Purgatory that lead to the belief about Indulgences. And the abuse of Indulgences lead to the Protestant Reformation.
Veneration of Saints and Icons. Probably the biggest difference in today's Catholic Church and the church from the first 3 centuries is the veneration of the saints and icons. This current practice of praying TO saints and bowing/signing to icons was completely foreign to the earliest Christians. In fact, through the first 3 centuries, the Christians everywhere wrote how this is idolatry. During that time, the veneration of saints and icons would have been blasphemy and those practicing such things would have been excommunicated from the church! Of all the things the modern Catholic Church does, this one is the most opposite of what the early church believed, taught, and practiced. In other words, the Church Fathers explicitly condemned these practices as heresy.
If you have any thoughts or questions about these things, I'll be happy to discuss them further with you. God bless!
About the canon of scripture I hope this will help you with your studies.
www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/canon-of-the-holy-scriptures
www.catholic.com/canon-of-scripture
NNN
IN THE BEGINIG THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
THE WORD BEING DECIDED ON
THE WORD WAS GOD
THE WORD CHOSEN
THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT
JUST NEED THE THINGS TO MAKE THAT SO
HAVE RESPECT FOR WORDS TRUP IF YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THEM YOU COME OUT LOOKING LIKE AN ASS
Did any church father deny Peter's primary?
Thanks for asking. Do you mean Peter as the primary apostle or do you mean the bishop of Rome's claim to Peter's primacy?
Post-Apostolic Church Did any Church father deny the primacy of Peter?
Post-Apostolic Church Bit of both.
The early Christians did talk about Peter as the foremost apostle. They would describe Peter as the first among equals. And many, many Christians through those first few centuries thought the same as the Bishop of Rome... that he was the first among equals. This was especially true for Tertullian who lived in Carthage. Because of where he lived, he felt that he could appeal to the church in Rome for help. However, the early Christians did not discuss the primacy of Peter (that he was the head of the church). The first time this began to surface seems to be in Tertullian's day when Stephen of Rome claimed to have authority over the church--because he is the successor of Peter. Terullian said that he was not the head of the church and was NOT in the place of apostolic authority. In Terullians letters between himself and Firmilian, they were very harsh against Stephen because Stephen was trying to control the church. They said that though Stephen may be a successor of Peter, he did not have the authority over the whole church--he only had complete authority over the church in Rome. Tertullian and Firmilian said that the bishop of Rome is to be equals among the other bishops.
Historically, the first time the primacy of Peter/Rome became accepted was near the end of the 300s AD. It did not exist in the first 3 centuries of Christianity.
Thanks for asking and God bless! Feel free to ask more questions. :)
Post-Apostolic Church Well, thank you. 🤗
Well, Tertullian did say to the heretic's at the time that he wouldn't give them a hearing if they didn't have apostolic succession? He told them to roll back there Bishop's, and even if they can do that, where abouts is there successions? St Augustine said the same and lined every Bishop of Rome right to perter, and said that there is no Donatists among them? I would say the chair of Peter. Did the Pope over see the canon of scripture?
St irenaeus of lyon said that all churchs must agree with the church of Rome?
At Ignatius of Antioch said that the bishop presides of the people then his letter to the Romans he gives all this praise to the church in Rome and he said that the church presides in love, presides over the over churchs. They all believed in Baptismal regenation, Mary as the new Eve, all the old churchs had alters and relic's of saints, which is either orthodox or Catholic, but they all believed that contraception was wrong which now only leaves one, the Catholic church.
Clement as bishop of Rome is equal in authority to his fellow presybiters in the church of Rome.
WRONG.
The office of Bishop is over that of his presbyters (priests).
Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome. Also he was ordained a priest by St. Peter himself.
1. Bishop (overseer)
2. Presbyter (priest)
3. Deacon
Thanks for commenting. I think this is worthy of discussion!
From the writings of the early Christians, the office of the bishop being over the office of the presbyter did not appear until Ignatius. In 1 Clement, Clement used the words for bishop and presbyter interchangeably. From their writings, the higher role of a bishop did not become commonplace until the end of the second century.
I could be missing some evidence that the office of bishop was higher than the office of presbyter in the first century. Do you know of any?
PRESBYTER , PRESBUTEROS MEANS AN OLD MAN OR ELDER .THIS DID NOT MEAN PRIEST ,=HIEREUS ONE WHO OFFERS A SACRIFICE WAS NEVER USED OF AN OFFICE IN THE CHURCH , UNTIL CHANGED BY THE R.C. CHURCH.
Acts 20:17-31, verse 17, "elders" (presbyters); verse 28, "overseers" (bishops), shepherds - same thing.
1 Peter 5:1-4, verse 1 "elders" (presbyters); verse 2 shepherds/pastors; "overseers" (bishops) - all the same.
Acts 14:23; Titus 5:1; James 5:14; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 5:17; Acts 15:2;
@@PostApostolicChurch The bishop is the highest order in any city. It is the bishop who ordains the priests and deacons. It is the bishop who sends letters to other bishops. It is the bishop that confirms. It is the bishop that oversees the Diocese/Eparchy to make sure that the apostolic tradition is maintained.
Bishop
Priest
Deacon
Research Peter the apostle in Rome. Didn't happen.
interesting myth. thanks
I wish your reformation isn't myth just facts 🤭
Here we go with more Christian bullshit. There used to be 2 letters by Clement. In 1850 one of them was exposed as a fraud. In other words, one letter, undated and unsigned, is all we have from Clement. What garbage. Ireneus made up this bullshit and you preach it like it were true.
The "evidence" that discredits Clement of Rome as the author of 2Clement is not sufficient. I have looked into all the reason why Clement didn't write 2Clement, and the reasons do not hold much water. During the first few centuries of Christianity (which is the most ancient witness), it was believed that Clement of Rome wrote 2Clement. I'm not going to say that Clement is the author beyond any doubt, but I will more easily believe the most ancient witnesses than current scholars.
Post-Apostolic Church+ What witnesses? Clement 1 and 2 are both unsigned and undated. And worse, they were "discovered" by a proven liar and forger Ireneus. Ireneus was a heretic hunter, a mafia underling who came to power thru the assassination of his predecessor while he was hobnobbing with the pope in Rome. His job was to shove Christianity down the throats of his constituents through torture. You are too smart to fall for this bull.
Yes, 1Clement and 2Clement are undated. 1Clement is signed by the church in Rome, where Clement of Rome was a bishop. For the same reason we believe Ephesians (which is not signed) was written by Paul and we believe the Illiad (which is not signed) was written by Homer, from other witnesses from the same time period explain who the author was of these books. Granted, the author of 2Clement is much more obscure, it was fairly common to believe that Clement of Rome wrote it. Eusebius says this, but also says that he could not find any hard evidence that Clement of Rome wrote it. If someone wishes to believe that Clement of Rome did not write 2Clement, that is fine with me.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Clement#Authorship)
Signed by the largest criminal organization that ever existed? Yeah, I'll buy that!
lit