The Epistle to the Philippians and Acts do not corroborate that the supposed 1 Clement was written in the 1st century.
hakeem wrote:Christian writings it is claimed Clement was bishop of the entire city of Rome.
Again, there is no internal evidence that the so-called 1 Clement was written in the 1st century. You are making an argument form silence since the letter does not state that it was written by a spokesman of the Church of Rome. Logically, it is not necessary to be an actual spokesman to write a letter falsely claiming to be from the Church of Rome.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:36 amThat's not what the letter says.
I already told you that I take 1 Clement as written by a spokesman of the church of Rome, not necessarily Clement, not necessarily a bishop.
Actually, I don't care if Clement existed or not. And the letter never says that it was written by Clement or a bishop.
My dating is from the internal evidence, and not related to any Clement.
hakeem wrote:Well, based on my research, the so-called Ignatius letters are forgeries or false attribution and products of fiction. It is simply implausible that a person who was imprisoned for the crime of preaching and teaching about Christ would be allowed to continue the very same criminal activity while under arrest especially in the 1st century.
Where would this Ignatius get pen, paper and ink to carry out his crime in the presence of guards?
In the writings of Josephus, a character called Jesus, the son of Ananus, was beaten to a pulp and was not even imprisoned.
In effect, there was no bishop named Ignatius of any city who wrote letters to anyone while he was incarcerated.
Well, once you agree that the so-called Ignatius letters are forgeries or false attribution and products of fiction then even if they are addressed to Christians they are not credible.`
hakeem wrote:In the time of Justin there were no such title of bishop and no bishops of entire cities like Rome or any other city.
Justin supposedly writing after c 130 CE did not acknowledge any bishop of any Church and knew nothing of letters by bishops.
The existing fragments of Hegesippus do not mention any letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth in the 1st century.
"Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is primary source of fiction and is a perfect example of corrupted writings. Virtually everything about the dating, chronology and authors of NT books in Against Heresies" have been rejected by Scholars and even Christians.
In "Against Heresies" it is claimed Jesus was crucified when he was an old man over forty years old which would destroy the claim in the NT that Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas.
If you assume Justin did not write all he knew about then the same thing applies to all writers. You use any ancient writings to support your arguments while admitting they did not write all that they knew.
BTW, the writings of Justin do not state that the so-called 1 Clement was written in the 1st century.