Why Was Clement Epistle Excluded From the Canon?

[QvQ]

I'd never read (or even heard) of Clement Epistle before, but I rather liked it. Thank you for posting. Sorry I have no answer as to why it wasn't included.

I'd never read it either. I was not inspired by it. It is a one note song, "Why any evil or sin? Answer: Jealousy." ta da." The Gospels, however the writings were chosen, are inspiring as well as inspired. I was thinking today that I interpret verses many different ways because they are like jewels, with many facets and sparkles hidden within.

 

[Carl Emerson]

or so we moderns think.....

Flying to the sun ????? Really ?????

 

[charsan]

Why not. We don't have a lot of information about those things because they are shrouded in weird terms.

 

[Carl Emerson]

A physical being flying to the Sun ?????

 

[charsan]

Sure, why not. Just flying up can be flying to the sun when you don't understanding flying

 

[public hermit]

Here's the phoenix passage (Roberts-Donaldson translation) :

CHAPTER 25 -- THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

First Clement: Clement of Rome

 

[HARK!]

I guess I'm old fashioned. lol I've heard several reasons why it's not included.

I believe it's not there because the Holy Spirit didn't want it there.

If He desired it to be so, rest assured it would be there.

Who does the Ruach Ha'Kodesh favor, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Messianics, the Orthodox, some other? How do you know? What is your proof?

Does the Ruach favor any particular set of doctrines?

 

[HARK!]

but that doesn't make it Scripture to be added to the canon.

What does make scripture? Who decides? There was no canon for the Torah until after the fall of the Temple.

 

[Jonaitis]

What does make scripture? Who decides?

The Holy Spirit guided the authors to write down his revealed will unto man, and that written word is inspired immediately, regardless if it is in this or that particular church's canon. The number count is already established, it is the churches under heaven who must recognize it by guidance and conviction which books should be known as canon, that's why it varied throughout history, yet the main books steadfastly remained. Our church recognizes 66 books, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. Could we be wrong? Could Esther be non-inspired? Possibly? However, I have come to be convicted of it truth as coming from God himself and revealing to man's his will, and scope - Christ.

 

[HARK!]

But the Phoenix is definitely Mythological.

Gorillas used to be mythical.

10 Beasts That Used To Be Mythical - Listverse

 

[concretecamper]

Hi there,

Rather interested in the reasons to exclude Clement from the Cannon.

The same Church that told us Matthew is inspired told us Clement's letter was not. Case closed.

 

[HARK!]

The same Church that told us Matthew is inspired told us Clement's letter was not. Case closed.

"Some guys got together, and they decided, because they said so," is not a reason.

 

[concretecamper]

"Some guys got together, and they decided, because they said so," is not a reason.

For some reason, the whole of Christianity accepts at a minimum over 90% of "some guys" decision.

 

[HARK!]

For some reason, the whole of Christianity accepts at a minimum over 90% of "some guys" decision.

Argumentum ad populum?

 

[concretecamper]

Argumentum ad populum?

I accept your hesitation to address the issue I raised. History is tough to argue against.

 

[HARK!]

I accept your hesitation to address the issue I raised. History is tough to argue against.

I'm sorry that it took me 4 minutes to point out that you presented a fallacious argument. History? What did Yahshua say about the traditions of men?

 

[concretecamper]

I'm sorry that it took me 4 minutes to point out that you presented a fallacious argument.

yes, you said this already.

History?

Yes, History

What did Yahshua say about the traditions of men?

doesnt address my point.

Again, the ENTIRETY of Christianity accepts at least over 90% of what these "some men" decided. Can't get around that fact.

 

[HARK!]

Again, the ENTIRETY of Christianity accepts at least over 90% of what these "some men" decided. Can get around that fact.

By your own testimony 10% of what these men decided is in question. Can't get around that fact; but I suspect that you'll try to find a way.

 

[concretecamper]

By your own testimony 10% of what these men decided is in question.

No, 10% is not in question. A minority of people who call themselves Christians reject the 10%.

Can't get around that fact

I'm not attempting to, unlike some

but I suspect that you'll try to find a way.

nope, I live in realville.

 

[HARK!]

No, 10% is not in question. A minority of people who call themselves Christians reject the 10%.

Yes, and you're back to resorting to argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument.