Clement of Rome

[stovebolts]

Has anyone read any of the early church fathers?
About a month or so ago, I downloaded Clements First Epistle written to Corinth and was utterly amazed at what he had written to the first century Church.

Now, I’ve read that Clement only wrote one letter and that the rest are false according to most scholars, but I found it simply amazing the he was a disciple of the Apostle John. One of my thoughts were this. Why was Luke’s writings (Luke and Acts) canonized and Clements not? Was it simply the integrity of the cannon in it’s structure? I mean, the gospel of Luke does a great job (from the perspective of being a second hand witness) of the life of Christ, and Acts is a fantastic bridge between the gospels and the letters. However, it appears that Clement seems to focus, or rather reiterate peace between arguing Christians...

This all being said, I couldn’t help but think of all the other theologians that get quoted, and it’s perfectly acceptable to quote a theologian. But if I were to quote Clement, (a man that walked with the Apostle John) how many of you first disregard this as a “Catholic†writing and throw it to the way side?

Clement 13:1 Let us therefore, brethren, be humble, laying aside all boasting and pride, and folly and wrath, and let us do that which is written; for the Holy Spirit saith, Let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his strength, nor the rich in his riches; but let him that boasteth make his boast in the Lord, even by seeking him and doing judgment and justice. Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:
13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you.

 

[happiejack00]

Regarding Clement

You are so right about dismissing something considered Catholic. I personally have gotten to where I read most things for myself then decide whether I want to believe it, disregard it, use it, or lose it. I know I have been very guilty of dismissing things because someone said this or that about something. Or to dismiss it because the name of that something sounds a certain way. I hope I am progressing as a christian and trying to stop doing that.

Happie Jack

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Happy! :D

Yeah, that's kind of why I posted this. Most look at the Roman Catholic Church and all that history gets tagged to everything in a bad light.

If you havn't read Clements First Epistle to Corinth, you should check it out. True, the first century Church did call themselves Catholic, but it was in the truest sense of the word and there was no "Roman", let alone "East or West" divisions in the Church.

It kind of struck me that Paul writes to the Corinthians because they have this attitude that they had 'arrived' spiritually, but then a few years down the road after the Apostle John dies, Clement writes another letter to them telling them to stop arguing amonst themselves.

I think that there is a lot we can pick up (as Christians) from Clements letter and it really goes to show me that history does indeed repeat itself. Also, when I read this letter from Clement, I try and keep in mind that they didn't have all the letters cannonized into what we now call the Bible. It just helps me keep the history of our religion in perspective.

Well, gotta run and I hope I articulated this ok.

Jeff

 

[mutzrein]

Based on what you have written above, I liked what was said. Where did you download it from?

 

[Solo]

Here is an interesting bit of 1 Clement:

• 1. Let us consider that wonderful type of the resurrection which is seen in the Eastern countries, that is to say, in Arabia.
  2. There is a certain bird called a Phoenix, of which there is never but one at a time: and that one lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near, that it must die, it makes itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh, and other spices into which, when its time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. 3. But when its flesh putrefies, it breeds a certain worm, which being nourished with the juice of the dead bird brings forth feathers; and when it is grown to a perfect state, it takes up the nest in which the bones of its parents lie and carries it from Arabia into Egypt, to a city called Heliopolis:
  4. And flying in open day in the sight of all men, lays it upon the altar of the sun, and so returns from where it came.
  5. The priests then search into the records of the time, and find that it returned precisely at the end of five hundred years.
  6. And shall we then think it to be any very great and strange thing for the Lord of all to raise up those that religiously serve him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird he shows us the greatness of his power to fulfil his promise? 1 Clement 12:1-6

Clement is also said to be a gnostic. Here is a paragraph from one of his writings:

• "Whether, then, the time be that which through the seven periods enumerated returns to the chiefest rest, or the seven heavens, which some reckon one above the other; or whether also the fixed sphere which borders on the intellectual world be called the eighth, the expression denotes that the Gnostic ought to rise out of the sphere of creation and of sin"
  (Clement of Alexandria. Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: The Stromata, or Miscellanies. Book IV. Chapter XXV).

Here is another Pro-Clement blurb from a Universalist Reincarnation website.

• In the Gnostic text entitled The Secret Gospel of Mark, one of the Christian Gnostic texts discovered in 1945, describes Jesus performing secret initiation rituals. Before the discovery of this secret gospel, our only knowledge of it came from a letter written by Clement. Clement quotes from this secret gospel and refers to it as, "a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected." He also states, "It even yet is most carefully guarded [by the church at Alexandria], being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." Clement mentions elsewhere that Jesus revealed a secret teaching to those who were "capable of receiving it and being molded by it" He also affirmed that, "The gnosis (secret knowledge) itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles." (The Stromata. Book VI, Chapter 7)

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Mutz,
I just copied it into a word document and saved it from here.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hoole.html


Solo,
Have you read 1 Clement or did you just search for negative data? First of all, you quoted 1 Clement 25:2-5 and 1 Clement 26:1, Not 1 Clement 12:1-6 according to Charles H. Hoole’s translation.

Secondly,
You Wrote:
Clement is also said to be a gnostic. Here is a paragraph from one of his writings:

As I stated earlier, only 1 Clement was ever considered viable while all others were counterfit. However, I find it almost hysterical that you quote a hate blurb on Cement of Alexandria while I am speaking on Clement of Rome. Lol.
Here’s a couple links for ya. No need in me parroting or wasting time pasting info from another site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

Lastly, you wrote:
Here is another Pro-Clement blurb from a Universalist Reincarnation website.

Where is you link? Give us a source. Aside from that Solo, please read the Wikepedia article on Clement of Rome. I believe it will sort out your confusion a bit.

Now, getting back to Clements remark on the Phoenix, for its day, I believe it was a perfectly acceptable remark as I am sure many believers believed in the Phoenix. After all, we must keep in mind that culture has always played a part in all religious writings and as Paul states, Romans 8:38-39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think that about covers it.

Peace Brother.

 

[Solo]

• I Clement (95-96 CE)
  The letter from the Christians in Rome to their fellow believers in Corinth known as I Clement is one of the earliest extant Christian documents outside the New Testament. There is widespread agreement in dating this letter 95-96 CE, in the year of the emperor Domitian or the first of his successor, Nerva. The letter reveals something of both the circumstances and attitudes of the Roman Christians, and how they differ from those of their fellow Christians in Asia Minor to whom the Revelation of John was addressed. Whereas in the Revelation of John, Rome is presented as the great harlot whose attacks upon the Church must be resisted, in I Clement one finds a much more positive view of the Roman government, and the elements of peace, harmony, and order that are so important to the author of this letter reflect some of the fundamental values of Roman society.
  
  While the letter, which was sent on behalf of the whole church, does not name its writer, well-attested ancient tradition identifies it as the work of Clement, although precisely who he is is not clear. Tradition identifies him as the 3rd bishop of Rome after Peter, but this is unlikely because the office of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time.
  Retrieved from http://www.ntcanon.org/I_Clement.shtml

Translations of First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

• English Translation of 1 Clement by J. B. Lightfoot - 65 Chapters
  
  English Translation of 1 Clement by Charles Hoole - 65 Chapters
  
  English Translation of 1 Clement by Roberts-Donaldson - 59 Chapters
  
  First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians by Archbishop Wake's translation from the ancient Greek copy of the Epistle, which is at the end of the celebrated Alexandrine Manuscript of the Septuagint and New Testament, presented by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, to King Charles the First, and is now in the British Museum. - 24 Chapters
  
  From the Roman Catholic Forum Community saints page - 65 verses

 

[stovebolts]

Solo,
I’m unclear on your stance since all you have offered is a cut paste of another site. This really tells me nothing as to what your views on Clement are. In my last post, I showed you your mistakes in what I believed was a kind, gentle manner and you simply give me a cut and paste from another site?

Question:
1. Have you read the entire letter of 1 Clement?
2. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

I’ll be interested in hearing your response from your own words as it may reduce any misunderstands that may occur between us.

Take care,
Jeff

 

[Veritas]

I just skimmed through 1 Clement, thanks for the link Solo.

That particular letter didn't seem like heresy to me. Looked like he was trying to address Christians that were tearing eachother down. He seemed to do a lot of recaping from the Old Testament. All his ideas seemed to be inline with the Bible.

I can see why its not included in the Bible however. It seems to be missing (I don't know how else to put this) the luminosity of the writings in the New Testament.

 

[Vic C.]

This all being said, I couldn’t help but think of all the other theologians that get quoted, and it’s perfectly acceptable to quote a theologian. But if I were to quote Clement, (a man that walked with the Apostle John) how many of you first disregard this as a “Catholic†writing and throw it to the way side?

Catholic, as in universal or worlwide... yes. Catholic. as in RC... no. This Clement was aprox. 200 years before the forming of the RCC.

I an the same category as happiejack00...

"I personally have gotten to where I read most things for myself then decide whether I want to believe it, disregard it, use it, or lose it. I know I have been very guilty of dismissing things because someone said this or that about something. Or to dismiss it because the name of that something sounds a certain way. I hope I am progressing as a christian and trying to stop doing that."

 

[Solo]

Solo,
I’m unclear on your stance since all you have offered is a cut paste of another site. This really tells me nothing as to what your views on Clement are. In my last post, I showed you your mistakes in what I believed was a kind, gentle manner and you simply give me a cut and paste from another site?

Question:
1. Have you read the entire letter of 1 Clement?
2. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

I’ll be interested in hearing your response from your own words as it may reduce any misunderstands that may occur between us.

Take care,
Jeff

I read through the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and was unmoved by its content. In the 24 Chapters of Archbiship Wake's translation the name of Jesus Christ is used 26 times. I thought the information concerning the Egyptian Phoenix was interesting as it is a modern day symbol of occultism and the coming of the age of antiChrist. Do I believe that Clement is a heretic? I don't know. Not much is known about him. No one is sure that Clement was the author of 1 Clement.

Who wrote the book of Hebrews? No one knows for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews does not give his own name, nor does he refer to any circumstances or connections that would identify him with absolute certainty. The writer of Hebrews was a man of high literary ability with more of a classical Greek style than any other writer of the New Testament. When I studied Greek in college, the writings of John were the more elementary of the Koinen Greek. The writer of Hebrews was not an immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:3). This writer was a friend of Timothy, therefore, was a member of the Pauline circle (Hebrews 13:23). His use of "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Hebrews 10:38), aligns with Paul's usage (Romans 1:17 & Galatians 3:11).

The Eastern church tradition supposes the authorship of Hebrews being indirectly that of Paul. Eusebius stated that Clement of Alexandria claimed that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. Origen frequently quoted Hebrews as being written by Paul even though the style and diction are not Paul's. Tertullian attributed the book of Hebrews to Barnabas, and Martin Luther guessed that it was written by Apollos. I lean toward the authorship of Hebrews being that of Barnabas, or the indirect authorship of Paul, but only God knows for sure.

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Vic,
I put quotes around “Catholic†for the supposed purpose of defining it from its roots as you have outlined. Awhile back, I purchased a book called , Church History in plain language by Bruce L. Shelly (Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary) I posted a link to this book in the book forum a few months after I purchesed it just in case anyone wants to check it out. (it may be a few paged back in the forum)

We call the years between AD 70 and 312 the Age of Catholic Christianity because this thought dominates Christian history between the death of the apostles and the rise of Christian emperors.
Though the universality of Christianity is a common idea in the New Testament, the term catholic never appears. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in the early second century, is apparently the first to use the word. He spoke of the “Catholic church,†when he said, “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church.†By the end of the second century, the term catholic was widely used of the church in the sense that the Catholic church was both universal, in contrast to local congregations, and orthodox, in contrast to heretical groups

.

Veritas,
I think we both got the same thing out of his writings. Although it is not a part of the canon as we know it today, I believe it rings true in many ways.

Solo,
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. Know that I appreciate the time you took to respond in such a complete manner.
I humbly stand corrected on the chapter and verse being you were using Wakes translation as it appears he parsed the letter differently than the other two translators and I was not aware of Wakes translation (I like his commentary and thanks for the link).

As far as the Phoenix thingy, when I read Clements work, I try to read it with the same lenses that I read the NT and that is, through the eyes of the original readers. I don’t think it’s fair to read what Clement has to say about the Phoenix with a 21st century understanding of what the Phoenix has become or currently represents. It’s kind of like expecting an original model T Ford that just came off the assembly line to have XM radio and air bags.

Lastly, I brought up the book of Hebrews because as you have stated, we are unsure of who the original author is. Like yourself, I tend to think that it was Barnabus. Regardless, I believe there is more evidence that Clement of Rome (the direct disciple of the Apostle John) was the author of 1st Clement than there is evidence that either Paul or Barnabus was the author of Hebrews.

Peace and once again, thank you Solo for your comments.

Jeff

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Jeff,

your post reminded me of something:

Once in a while, Pastor will put in our weekly bullitin, the Apostle's Creed, to be recited at the end of the Service. He does change the word "catholic" to "apostolic". 8-) He does it to avoid confusion. :-? Many believers are not like us; they aren't glued to their computers and text book and may not know the definition of "catolic" as it's used in the Creed. Maybe he should state it as such, with a disclaimer at the end. ;-)

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[stovebolts]

Yeah, I know what you mean, though I think I assume too much on occation and I'm not very good at articulating my thoughts.

I think it was both James and Kyril that got me into Church History. For me, it's really amazing. My latest kick has been OT Theology and I just finished a course in it. (as an auditor cause I didn't qualify for the class). Actually, I just got another book in the mail (wife was real pleased with that one lol ;-) ) and it's OT Theology by Paul House. He seems to do a really good job of giving a theological view on each of the books of the OT instead of forming an OT Theology with a central theme. Yesterday, I finished his veiw on the Chronicles. It was simply facinating!

In our OT Theology class, we had to discipline ourselves to look at the OT without a NT lense. It was tough, but now, when I go into the NT, so much more blossoms out of it. I remember the first time I read 1 John, and it felt like a letter that was being written to me. It wasn't scripture, it wasn't doctrine... it was just a fantastic letter. When I read scripture in relation to historical events that shaped the letter, it just seems to come alive.

Taking this into account, when I read 1 Clement from the lense of the original receivers of the letter, it helped me get a view of what the early church was going through. Paul had tried to do his best in preaching to the Corinthians, and so did Clement. (Though Clement was a bit more forward). Fast forward a couple thousand years... and were still making history, but instead of Clement, it's people like Martin Luther, or Calvin or from a modern time, Breuggerman or even Rick Warren. In each case, there seems to be a pattern and it's always derived off some event and our response to that event.

Well, enough rambling... but here's just one thought. If Clement of Rome was a direct student of the Apostle John, then why did he say such things about the Elect if it wasn't an ideology that existed from the Apostles themselves? (keeping in mind that they only had the OT and the Elect was already defined as were the expectations of the Elect)

Clement wrote: Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that in his mercy and good pleasure the number of his elect might be saved.