Modalist claims Catholic Church destroyed Gospel

[GregoryN]

I was researching 2 Clement & happened upon the following article arguing that early writings such as 1 & 2 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas & the Gospel to the Egyptians support Modalism (also called Sabellianism) & that is why the Catholic Church later destroyed copies of the latter & many copies of the others.

See the entire article here & let me know how you would refute their claims, including that those early writings support their false teaching:

"To make matters worse for Trinitarian scholars, the author of 2 Clement cited a passage from the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2:4). The Shepherd of Hermas also happens to contain graphic Modalistic theology as the Holy Spirit is identified as the same divine Person as the Son of God. The Shepherd of Hermas Parable 5:6 says, “The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself.” Hermas Book 3, Similitude 9:1 says, “…the angel of repentance, he came to me and said, ‘I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’”

http://www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2016/10/22/Introduction-to-1-and-2-Clement

 

[GregoryN]

This article claims & argues at length with numerous quotes that:

"Since it has been presumed by many that it is fact to say the early church writers after the death of the last of the 12 apostles, John, were not oneness, I have compiled proof that they were more Modalistic."

https://www.scribd.com/document/102681680/The-Early-Church-Writings-and-Modalism-Oneness

This author also presents a position re anti-Trinitarianism in early church writings:

http://www.apostolicchristianfaith.com/single-post/2016/10/22/Introduction-to-1-and-2-Clement


For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears (Acts 20:29-31).

The Church Fathers are far less reliable than any other sources. I have looked at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Justin and found them all to have problems with significant amounts of later or interpolated material. I suspect the same is true with Clement, but I admit I have not yet attempted to tackle or list his issues of question - what I do know is he has an approach and focus on issues that do not fit the 2nd century, but fit a much later era. Much as I think the NT is generally dated as much as a century too early for many books, I think the same and then some for many of the church fathers.

I am most suspicious of materials that are either pseudo biographical or autobiographical or which which address the issues of martyrdom and Canon. It is these interwoven pseudo autobiographical materials which are used most frequently to date the Church Fathers.But they are questionable legends, and no more reliable that the headers of NT letters. Almost all are later back stories invented and assigned to probably anonymous tracks. And our manuscripts for the church fathers are almost all uniformly late, as in the 10th to 14th centuries.

I will note Clement's commentary. But I am not ready to accept it as either from whom it is claimed, as it could well have come from a later editor who produced the collection in the middle ages (e.g., Xiphilinus hand in Dio's work).

Note: this blind acceptance of Church Father legends as fact is one of the worst practices in this field, and is in serious need of reform.

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4449

How reliable are the so-called alleged "early church fathers" writings? How seriously should we take these writers? Irenaeus, for example, thought Jesus died as an old man of about 50:

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.c...irenaeus-thought-jesus-lived-to-50-years-old/