Talk:Clement I

The sources for this article

Are wqe seriously quoting "Catholic Encyclopedia" as the only source here? What the flying hellfuck? Are we next going to write an article about some caliph or other and only quote the al-hazar university? Pizzameister (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely fail to see why we should cover individual early popes. I've seen a list of Roman emperors about the place somewhere. Perhaps a similar list of terrible or amusingly wrong popes might suffice? Flannan Isle (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It might. Pizzameister (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clement I is worth of covering because he is the first KNOWN bishop of Rome after Linus. Bishop of the Rome between Linus and Clement is UNKOWN. (Catholic claims that Anacletus was pope between Linus and Clement I, but Anacletus is not even a leigit-name! Moreover even Catholic do not know when Anacletus got pontificated and when his pontifexship ended. In fact, neither side of non-protestant Church thinks that Anacletus ever existed.) In fact church in Rome was extremely reluctant about being involved in any public manner. Because Catholic church are unable to find any record about early Roman church, many articles are fabricated to support "Rome Da Number 1" idea. Clement I, who is the FIRST bishop of Rome who actually showed up in public by leaveing letter that warns about unjustified removal of Presbytyrs, became major target for fabrication.--Weridhamster (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

He is notable for writing a book which almost became part of the New Testament. --Vital Forces (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul

The article about Paul states the following in Historicity of Paul: "There is no evidence for Paul outside the New Testament."

This article states "It is also significant as evidence for the existence of Paul of Tarsus, praising his patience and referencing one of his epistles."

One of these must be adjusted.

--Vital Forces (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1 Clement

From the section the Dating: "Never mind none of them come up with an intelligent reason for someone writing in the 90s as if a temple destroyed some 20 years before was still intact."

Communication was much slower back then. It is entirely plausible that someone living in 90s Rome would have been unaware of the destruction of the Temple in far off Jerusalem in 70 AD. It's certainly possible he would have known about it roughly 25 years later, but there weren't even newspapers let alone the Internet to inform him. --Vital Forces (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)