Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; RogerS
Be it as it may, the letter of Clement does contain that claim implicitly, by referring to the rod of Aaron.

We don't know at which point in time that was isnerted into the text or whether it was part of the original. But we do know that the First Letter of Clement appeals to reason, arguing that someone who is without blemish should not be deposed. But, the Epistle of Clement is not a pristine document either, as so many present it to be. For one, Clement repeatedly refers to the OT as scripture, but never to any references to the NT (mostly Pauline Epistles).

Here are more interesting facts about I Clement.

So, whatever we read in them, keep in mind that no matter what it says, it is also a "a modification of the text to suit the later spirit of the Roman church," something so often encountered with all documents of yore. The details of it shows that beyond any doubt (reversing the Pauline teaching on authority, etc.). Note also that it refers to bishops as "elders."

What I am saying is that although the authenticity of the original author is not so much disputed, the letter cannot be taken as Gospel, knowing that changes have been made in it.

Prudence therefore suggests proceeding with a grain of salt and not reading too much into it.

188 posted on 11/03/2009 10:07:43 PM PST by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50

The issue here is St. Clement’s reliance on the Old Testament to draw the link to the priesthood to Aaron. If you have evidence that that part was inserted you need to present the evidence.


192 posted on 11/04/2009 6:54:01 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson