Clement of Alexandria and Paul El-Feghali shoot the Bible

 George:

I see that in your two new topics you want to convince us of the resurrection and salvation through Christ....

And I had two small questions????


But before the two questions:

First:

From your words it is clear to me that you are preaching a doctrine.....(((biblical)))) 

meaning that you are not preaching a belief that you invented....

And since it is a biblical doctrine:

then we must scrutinize the texts in this book regarding this subject....

And also the presenter (writer) of these texts.....(Saint Paul and Saint John)


And if we prove that these texts (under discussion) (to avoid confusion)

are distorted and fabricated (invented)..... then

your preaching and all preaching are invalidated.

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. The first question: What is your opinion of this interesting contradiction: (John 1:13-14) To those who who has been "born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. " But the big surprise is that Clement of Alexandria (third century) had the text in a different form: (For those who have been born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh , but in the Spirit, which is concerned with repentance and not returning to the same error .) In English (so you can search for it on the page): who has been "born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,"127 but in the Spirit; which consists in repenting by not giving way to the same fault

Christian link :

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...ault#highlight

And now the question:

These newly born (that you brought and you want us to get rid of them): Were they born with God incarnate or by repentance and not returning to the same sin????? 

And at the same time:

And they accepted with it... the subject of repentance which also developed with the development of time... The system of repentance and confession was not in the early church spongy (dependent on another) as it became later in the late Latin churches which turned Christ into responsible for our sins (by salvation) ..!!


The penitential system of the early Church was no more sponge like that of the later Latins, which turns Christ into "the minister of sin."

This point is on the same page in a yellow box below....

If you want it, search the icon on the side. Search within book:


And by the way:

Is the Gospel of John that Clement of Alexandria had the same as the one we have now???

Please respond with evidence.....


######

The second question:

It is known that Saint Paul is the one who presented the doctrine of redemption resulting from the crucifixion,

but.....

What if Saint Paul was not the one who wrote it? What

if it was the opinions of a group of unknown people that make one angry 

? How can I trust the entirety of the letters? 



The Catholic priest Paul Al-Feghali says:

6 - Footnotes: Another form of the second Pauline letters
. So, Saint Paul was reread and reinterpreted. This produced The phenomenon is five or six Second Pauline Epistles, which the Church has included in its canon, considering (and this is a matter to which we shall return) that they deserve the honor enjoyed by letters issued directly from the hand of the Apostle. But we cannot conclude this general overview without pointing out another form of the Second Pauline Epistles: a specific and short text. For this reason we consider it unsuccessful . Here we have footnotes inserted by scribes in the texts to make them respond better to the situation of the churches that read them . Then we find a Pauline text corrected by people who have moved far away from it in time. We will give two examples of this which we read in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
We read in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35: “As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not lawful for them to speak; they must be in subjection, as the law says. But if they want to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in public.” This text, which contradicts feminism (21), is at the root of the violent hatred felt by women towards Paul. There is no doubt that this text seems so radical that it makes one tremble with anger. But it is not from Paul. There is no doubt about that . And I do not say this to please women . We seem to be dealing with a footnote inserted by a writer of the patristic era. And why this conclusion?For if it had been from Paul, the apostle himself would have been blatantly opposed. For he himself wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:5: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” It is certainly proper for a woman to cover her head. But she is said to be praying. In ancient times, prayer in the community was said aloud. And she is also said to be prophesying. How could she prophesy without opening her mouth, without speaking? If Paul imposed certain rules of etiquette on women in the community, he did not expect women to be silent. The command to be silent imposed on women in 1 Corinthians 14, which also uses the word “law” in a sense quite different from its ordinary Pauline meaning, is also a footnote inserted by a writer: he copied Paul’s letter, introduced into the text a practice known to his local church, and thus gave force to a practice that came after the first century.
There is also a footnote of lesser consequence, inserted in 1 Cor 15:56, in the middle of an expansion on death and resurrection : “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Why are sin and the law mentioned here, without any connection to the context? This is similar to some of the themes that Rom expands upon. It was inserted in this passage by a writer who had been nourished by Pauline teaching and wanted to boast of his knowledge of Paul’s thought. Are we dealing with a copyist’s eloquence? We do not know . However, this approach shows that Christians have long felt the need to expand Pauline thought, because it is complex and because it voluntarily leads the reader to interpret it.

Christian link:

http://www.paulfeghali.org/index.php...88&page_id=510