Sacred Writings of Clement of Rome, disciple of Peter

Ante Nicene Father's volume VIII contains some of the writings of the proficient Clement of Rome, disciple of Peter the Apostle.

It also has the pseudo-Clementine literature written by the Ebonites, an Israelite Messianic sect led by James brother of Jesus. If not for the sect being translated"the poor" in the book of Acts, more people would know of them. Ebionim, Ebonites does mean that, but it is a formal name and doesn't refer to the average poor person but a Hebrew sect dedicated to living a life of poverty. They were eliminated by Roman Catholicism as heretics around 300A.D.

Highlights are Simon Magus vs Peter in the Acts of Peter and Paul. Rumor is that Simon is being used as a pseudonym for Paul who is a pretty minor and subservient character to Peter.

Acts of Thomas, taking him to India. Acts of John the Evangelist. Acts of Philip, Andrew, Barnabas, Matthew and Thaddeus.

Christ's descent into Hell. Epistle to James.

It goes on and on and is a work once thought "lost." It's extremely valuable for a look at early Christian thought and some words spoken from Peter to Clement of Rome.

But here it is: Clementine collection

a reply to: Szarah

More proof the Catholic Church is nothing more than a false religion.

They silenced anyone who threatens their power including the original Christians and they have a lust for power and greed.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Szarah

More proof the Catholic Church is nothing more than a false religion.

They silenced anyone who threatens their power including the original Christians and they have a lust for power and greed.

True that. It's why I like to make known non canonical scripture.

The OP should say Ebionites not Ebonites, I think my spell check changed it.

a reply to: Szarah

I have several books not included in the bible and they are very illuminating. I think if people are serious about their belief system its gobsmacking they don't research it to find if its been a put-together-job by the church for its own control over people's minds.

I still think Christ was more gnostic which makes Clement someone who conspired along with Irenaeus to create an acceptable form of religion for the time in order tho get patronage from their rulers, which was not exactly what Christ taught. All the desert religions were created by men with their own agendas and lust for power over other mens minds and finances which was paid for by the controlled - its actually pathetic.

I think it tragic that when ordinary people look at these sumptuous palaces of worship yet don't see the hypocrisy of the established desert religions. One of the commandments in the bible, but not given the same authority as the normal 10, is about where to worship and the simplicity of the stone and surroundings. Its a total joke they make money out of ex pagan sacred spaces which if you can find one not contaminated by the church, you are immediately aware of its peace and sanctity and you don't need an uncomfortable seat to sit on before you cough up financially whilst there.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Your thinking of Clement of Alexandria.

This Clement was with the James/Peter faction.

Although Clement of Alexandria was sympathetic to the "Gnostics" he wrote the definition of what a true Gnostic was which is a little different from the Egyptian and Syrian Gnostics.

But both Clements seem like liberal Christians to me.

Iranaeus was just a jerk though.

I agree that Christ was Gnostic. He was The Gnostic.

And that organized Christianity is all about money and a joke. Definitely not following Christ.

a reply to: Shiloh7

I think the lives and roles of the real Apostles and James the Just were marginalized by their own enemy Paul. The inclusion of his letters was the downfall of The Way and the birth of Catholicism.

a reply to: Szarah

Yes that as whom I was thinking of.

Its a sad thing that the sacred side of our lives is 'controlled' by such a greedy, rancid lot.

a reply to: Szarah
Gnosisisfaith/ ./././././. and now resurrected as Szarah is alive and well on ATS.

all the same stuff over and over and over .

PUKE!!!!

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm glad you enjoy the writings of Clement.

Have a great day!

a reply to: Szarah

read them years ago no life to them. Man made junk.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Szarah

read them years ago no life to them. Man made junk.

Man also made the Bible so...

I think you just don't like to read about anything and don't even read the Bible, you just look at the letters.

Most people would love to read about the first three centuries of the church before it Romanized. Clement actually wrote some of that and actually knew Peter.

That is far from junk.

a reply to: Szarah
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction, Rebuke, correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of god may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:16

church history does not save. Any of his work is subject.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The Bible saying that the Bible is true is a ridiculous way of trying to prove it is the word of God.

Plus that quote could only be referring to the Old Testament, as the New hadn't been written yet.

Regardless, the Bible is a book written by men and is not history, just a religious book. One of MANY throughout the world.


And just because"church history doesn't save" doesn't mean it shouldn't be learned.

If you're "saved" you wouldn't be worried about reading books that aren't in the Bible.

Is that a sin?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You can't even use your own words to explain why the Bible is the word of God.

You rely on quotes from the Bible to explain why it is true and think that is logical?

No, you need corroboration and it doesn't exist. The Bible is a stand alone document with no historical documentation of almost every person named except foreign kings.

Even Pharaoh goes nameless because it is a myth.

a reply to: Szarah

OP, would you list your sources or references for how you know that Clement knew Peter personally? I would be very interested in finding out more about that.

The Clementine reference you listed is quite long, I don't think it would be easy for me to find what you are referring to.

originally posted by: Elcabong
a reply to: Szarah

OP, would you list your sources or references for how you know that Clement knew Peter personally? I would be very interested in finding out more about that.

The Clementine reference you listed is quite long, I don't think it would be easy for me to find what you are referring to.

There are many stories about Peter and Clement I will gladly get you the chapters. Just a moment.

One of the headings says Clement disciple of Peter in the book.

But I found the same material with chapter titles for each instead of numbers.

Here it is Clement

I got the book coming in a few days, I prefer to read books or have them and read them online so they stay new.

Other religions have so much more scripture like Judaism and its fifty books and Hinduism.

Christianity and OT Judaism is full of Apocrypha that is highly revealing spiritual material that the small minded Catholics banned them. Thank God someone kept them.

a reply to: Szarah

you must see that if the Bible is not true then it cannot be trusted to bring us to Salvation.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

If they be not true they cannot be trusted to enlighten, instruct, rebuke, teach, make one wise, correction or any other thing that the Scriptures can do.

Not only that the AV is the only Bible that has advance revelation so in this case of 2 Tim 3:16 is referring to us ALL scripture including the NT.

You are the one who errs not knowing the scriptures, Gnosisisfaith/Szarah

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The Bible doesn't bring us Salvation. And it isn't true in a historical sense.

Salvation is from baptism of the Holy Spirit and while that is taught in the Gospels it has been attacked by the church as "works based salvation" as if that is bad or something.

So the mythology of the Bible just preserves THAT message and the rest of Christ's teachings.

No need to believe it is history because the Holy Spirit is Salvation, not a book. You could get Salvation from just the Gospels and do not need the rest.

a reply to: Szarah
Oh My let me use the words of the Bible then

"...make us wise unto salvation." which literally means the same thing.

Salvation is through faith

Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

No Baptism is a requirement of the Kingdom Gospel - no longer in affect until the great tribulation

It is not a requirements of the Gospel of the Grace of God - currently in affect.

Holy Ghost does not come to anyone unless they first access salvation through faith and take hold of the gift of God, his sons shed blood on the cross forgiveness of sins.