Who knew the apostle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adolfo123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adolfo123

Guest
Which church father Knew personally the apostle of Jesus…???
 
Just off the top of my head and hardly an exhaustive list but Clement was a disciple of St. Paul and was ordained by Peter. Luke was a disciple of John. Mark was a disciple of Peter. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John.
 
adolfo123 said:
Which church father Knew personally the apostle of Jesus…???
Click to expand...
St. Ignatius of Antioch knew John, the Apostle, as well as St. Polycarp. St. Clement of Rome knew Peter. St. Clement of Rome was ordained by St. Peter.
 
I am interested in the early Church, so was very interested in this topic.

However questions still remain.

Who was John and which of the following refer to the John mentioned in this discussion?

Which of the following describe hem?
1 the beloved disciple,
2 the brother of James and son of Zebedee,
3 the author of the fourth Gospel,
4 the author of the Apocalypse/Revelation.

Who was Clement of Rome? What was his relationship with Peter and Paul?

Clement tells us in Ch 5 of 1 Clem:
But to pass from the examples of ancient times, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our own generation. Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and fought to the death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. There was Peter, who, because of unrighteous jealousy, endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. Because of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the way to the prize for patient endurance. After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the East and in the West, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the West. Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance.
Click to expand...
In Ch 47 one reads:
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he first write to you in the “beginning of the gospel”? Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.
Click to expand...
Thus from Clement’s own writings we see he knew about Peter and Paul. However did he know them personally?

Next one wonders did Ignatius of Antioch know Peter and Paul. Ignatius died about 110 AD and Paul at one time was based in Antioch, but the death of Ignatius was about 35 years after the death of Paul and possibly about 60 years after the Council of Jerusalem. So there is the possibility that Ignatius knew Paul.

Ignatius in his Letter to the Ephesians (12:1,2) wrote:
I know who I am and to whom I am writing. I am a convict, you have received mercy; I am in danger, you are secure. You are the highway of those who are being killed for God’s sake; you are fellow initiates of Paul, who was sanctified, who was approved, who is deservedly blessed—may I be found in his footsteps when I reach God!—who in every letter remembers you in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
And to the Romans (3:3) he wrote:
I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave. But if I suffer, I will be a freedman of Jesus Christ, and will rise up free in him. In the meantime, as a prisoner I am learning to desire nothing.
Click to expand...
Do these quotes sound like the words of one who actually knew Paul?

Ignatius wrote about Peter (Ign. Smyr. 3:1-3):
For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: “Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon.” And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood. For this reason they too despised death; indeed, they proved to be greater than death. And after his resurrection he ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh, although spiritually he was united with the Father.
Click to expand...
Again do these words sound like those of one who personally knew Peter?

Thus it is not clear that Ignatius knew Peter and Paul.

I agree that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who in turn knew John, even though there is doubt about who exactly John was.

So what do you think?

Can someone clarify my thinking and show who knew whom?
 
NoelFitz said:
I am interested in the early Church, so was very interested in this topic.

However questions still remain.

Who was John and which of the following refer to the John mentioned in this discussion?

Which of the following describe hem?
1 the beloved disciple,
2 the brother of James and son of Zebedee,
3 the author of the fourth Gospel,
4 the author of the Apocalypse/Revelation.

Who was Clement of Rome? What was his relationship with Peter and Paul?

Clement tells us in Ch 5 of 1 Clem:

In Ch 47 one reads:

Thus from Clement’s own writings we see he knew about Peter and Paul. However did he know them personally?

Next one wonders did Ignatius of Antioch know Peter and Paul. Ignatius died about 110 AD and Paul at one time was based in Antioch, but the death of Ignatius was about 35 years after the death of Paul and possibly about 60 years after the Council of Jerusalem. So there is the possibility that Ignatius knew Paul.

Ignatius in his Letter to the Ephesians (12:1,2) wrote:

And to the Romans (3:3) he wrote:

Do these quotes sound like the words of one who actually knew Paul?

Ignatius wrote about Peter (Ign. Smyr. 3:1-3):

Again do these words sound like those of one who personally knew Peter?

Thus it is not clear that Ignatius knew Peter and Paul.

I agree that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who in turn knew John, even though there is doubt about who exactly John was.

So what do you think?

Can someone clarify my thinking and show who knew whom?
Click to expand...
like the scripture tradition helps in giving more background to the mean of them… So the writings of the fathers also come with traditions that the next followers keeped… helping as see and shape what history was …

early kind of writing comes with its traditions from books in the bible to novels of shakespear…
 
MarcoPolo

Thank you for ypur reply.

Nowadays it is generally accepted that the Clement in Phil 4:3 is not St Clement of Rome. However if you have proof to the contrary I would like to hear it.
2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion,p help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life (New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Php 4:2-3).
Click to expand...
The Anchor Bible Dictionary gives fro Clement (emphasis added):
Tradition from the ancient church, specifically Origen (Jo. 6.36), has identified this Clement from Philippi with Clement of Rome, the author of 1 Clem. (ca. 96), a view then transmitted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.4.9) and taken up by later writers. Irenaeus, writing before Origen, had said that Clement of Rome, whom he lists as the third in the list of Peter’s successors, was a disciple of the Apostles (Haer. 3.3.3), but he did not link him explicitly with the Philippian Clement. Nor did Tertullian, who wrote that Clement of Rome was consecrated by Peter (De praescr. haeret. 32), mention any connection between Clement and Paul. It is generally judged, in spite of Origen’s statement, that **an identification of the Philippian Clement with the Clement of Rome is unlikely because of the geographical and chronological distance that separates these two **(Lightfoot 1888: 168–71). Also, Clement was a common name in the 1st century.
Click to expand...
Adolfo123

You wrote
like the scripture tradition helps in giving more background to the mean of them… So the writings of the fathers also come with traditions that the next followers keeped… helping as see and shape what history was … early kind of writing comes with its traditions from books in the bible to novels of shakespear…
Click to expand...
I am not clear about what point you are making.
 
NoelFitz said:
MarcoPolo

Thank you for ypur reply.

Nowadays it is generally accepted that the Clement in Phil 4:3 is not St Clement of Rome. However if you have proof to the contrary I would like to hear it.
Click to expand...
What can I tell you other than the quotes I gave to Jerome and Eusebius. The Anchor Bible quote also gives Origen and an implicit connection by Irenaeus. I also don’t see in the Philippians verse that Clement has to be geographically located in Philippi, and even so, if Paul connected with Philippi and Rome too, why couldn’t Clement?
 
MarcoPolo,

many thanks for your reply.

There is a possibility that Clement of Rome and the Clement referred to by Paul were the same person.

However, as I wrote previously, it is generally accepted now that they were different people.

Please look at the Hot Topic,* “Is Clement of Rome in the Bible”*, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=351457.

There is a well known rhyme about the Bells of St Clement’s in London.
Gay go up and gay go down,
To ring the bells of London town.
Click to expand...
Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clements.
Click to expand...
Bull’s eyes and targets,
Say the bells of St. Marg’ret’s.
Click to expand...
Brickbats and tiles,
Say the bells of St. Giles’.
Click to expand...
Halfpence and farthings,
Say the bells of St. Martin’s.
Click to expand...
I contacted the vicar of St Clement’s, since I am interested in Clement of Rome, asking him was the Clement in the rhyme Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria. He replied that it was Clement of Rome, mentioned by St Paul.

So there are different views.
 
NoelFitz said:
MarcoPolo,

many thanks for your reply.

There is a possibility that Clement of Rome and the Clement referred to by Paul were the same person.

However, as I wrote previously, it is generally accepted now that they were different people.
Click to expand...
I am not aware that it is generally accepted other than as claimed by Lightfoot. And I think his reasoning, according to the Anchor Bible, begs a lot more information. With everything presented in this thread, I would say that Clement of Rome was the one mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is the far more plausible idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top