Welcome aboard.

Only if you're a lying troll. If you're not one of those, then you are crtainly free to remain here.

No, Caner never got back to me. No, Luke is never quoted in Clement.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Not once is Luke or any Gospel quoted by Clement.

Bart Ehrman in his Loeb text (the Greek text of the Apostolic Fathers) writes in the introduction, "...It is clear that this author does not yet have anything like a canon of the 'New Testament' scripture, and yet is beginning to ascribe authority to the words of Jesus and the writings of his apostles. He quotes Jesus' words on several occasions, evidently as he knows them from earlier traditions rather then written Gospels, since the quotations do not match any of our surviving manuscripts." (Bart Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library)

You claim erroroneously that Luke is quoted from in Chapter 24. Let's look:

"We should consider, loved ones, how the master continuouly shows us the future resurrection that is about to occur, of which he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruit by raising him from the dead. We should look, loved ones, at the resurrection that happens time after time. Day and night reveal to us a resurrection: the night sleeps and the day arises; the day departs and and the night arrives. We should consider the crops: how, and in what way, does the sowing occur? The sower goes out and casts each of the seeds into the soil. Because they are dry and barren they decay when they fall onto the soil. But the magnificent forethought of the Master raises them up out of their decay, and from the one seed grow more, and so bring forth the crop." (Bart Ehrman, 1 Clement 24:1-5, The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library)

Where do you see any quotation of Luke here? In my Loeb text, and also in my Lightfoot addition of the Apostolic Fathers, there are three cross references: Isa. 13:22; Mal 3:1; 1 Cor. 15:20; 36. In fact, and devestatingly for your case, if Clement pulled from any Gospel, he would have pulled this from Mark (even if you claim he didn't - which proves how little you know of your own religions history) in the way of Mark 4:3. Luke is not once discussed in any of my authoritative Apostolic Father works, either in the Loeb text from Harvard, or in the Lightfoot edition which also has the Greek.

In fact the ONLY book which points to Luke in my Library is the Hendrickson Publisher edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series, where it has a footnote placed after the word "sower" and says "COMP Luke viii 5." The obvious problem here, my theist friend, is that COMP means "compare." So let's compare. I did the following in a word document. The Greek is taken from the Apostolic Fathers Loeb text by Ehrman and the NA27 Novum Testamentum Graece:

The Red highlighted selections of texts are the words in the Greek which are common. Notice that the only words highlighted are the metaphorical term for "field" and "sower." Words like "kai" are like "and, also" as "autos" or "auta" are third person pronouns.

The very reason the footnote comes after the word "sower" is because there is no other similarity with the Gospels in thi chapter. That's it - sower. There is nothing similar about these three texts, save for the subject. There was no quoting, only from tradition. Quoting is when somebody takes a text and reproduces a copy within their own manuscripts. This is clear in the Gospels, for example, when Jesus allegedly quotes from OT scripture. This is clear in Paul's epistles where he does the same thing.

Ehrman wasn't lying when he said the quotations are most likely from tradition and not manuscripts, in fact he goes into detail in the introduction of the translation with the fact that it is clear no manuscript we have matches with the words attributed to Christ by Clement. And why the confusion as to which group of texts it belongs, as 1 Corinthians 15 goes into detail about the sower as well - and the author of Clement could have simply used the writings of Paul - or heard the tradition from that of Pauline churches.

Trying to force Luke into Clement is futile. One might as well try forcing the Gospels in Moby Dick - both deal with sea faring in some regard, both have a hero character - but of course you would never try to do that. And you shouldn't attempt to do that here. Especially when, as is the case with the Gospels quoting scripture, Clement never cites a source for the quote - so you are basically engaging in speculation and special pleading in order to make the Gospel verse fit in Clement.

Good. Hope this was also enlightening.