Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
>> BTW there was no big “C”atholic Church at the time of Ignatius. <<
To the contrary, that’s Ignatius’ point... that there is only one true church, and that is the one under the authority of the bishop.
>> Ignatius-Forgeries? Authentic? Who knows. <<
Hardly a scholarly work. I got a particular chuckle over the author presuming they HAD to be forgeries because in the epistle to the Romans, Ignatius failed to appeal to the local bishop. Of course, in several of the letters, Ignatius was a head of the church at Antioch, appealing to non-apostolic sees to obey the LOCAL bishop. In the case of Rome, it was strangely unnecessary for a distant patriarch to tell the locals to obey the local bishop. I wonder, wonder, wonder why Ignatius wouldn’t have felt the need to do so. Yup, it must be because they were written by different authors.
>> Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius <<
Yes, scholars do hold the “long recenscion” to be dubious... because it includes works not found in the shorter recensions, an unmentioned by earlier witnesses. Of course, the quotes we’re debating appear in the shorter recensions. It’s not very reasonable to take an excerpt out of context to make it appear like a source is arguing against a point, when in fact the source is arguing for the point.
What do we learn from the existence of a longer recension? Well, for starters, if we presume that the longer recension is an extrapolation, than we learn that the other ancient sources mostly declined to include extrapolations for which they held the authentic original sources. And that the Catholic Encyclopedia is willing to default to skepticism. And finally, since the shorter recensions are found even in the anti-Nicene churches, we disprove the notion that the content of the shorter recensions were devised to support Constantine.
Is Ignatius proven absolutely genuine? Well, I suppose short of constructing a time machine and traveling to back in time to watch him, those whose religious doctrines necessitate that they deny Ignatius will never accept its authenticity. But do we in any way establish any reason for suspecting that the Acts of Peter had to be a source for later claims that Peter was in Rome? We quite plainly ground them into nonsense.
Justin Martur and Irenaeus don't quote any 1st century Ignatius.
Like it or not Dear Friend,you use this same principle to believe that the Bible is the word of God since we have only scraps of the originals and no signed copies from the Apostles to authenticate them.
95% of the New Testament can be reproduced from the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers.
Thus ,the importance of consistent oral tradition as a safeguard.
As a safeguard for what?? perpetual fraud??? and that from the church that writes down everything and documents all of its affairs, and does nothing by word of mouth. Please ---
I think your choice of language and your logic speaks for itself.
“”95% of the New Testament can be reproduced from the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers.””
This means that you trust these Blessed men who believed the Eucharist to be the “actual” Body and Blood of Christ to tell you the Bible is the word of God.
Like it or not, Dear Friend,you trust them to tell you the authenticity of the Scripture’s being from the Apostles since they are not signed by the Apostles
BTW , Chip, are you also of the same belief as diego1618 -one of these people who believe that satan had intercourse with eve and produced cain?
Off to enjoy the game.
I wish you peace of mind in your search!
Quoting Ignatius is always problematic.
It has always been considered good "form" to ping those of whom you look down your nose at.....publicly. Unless, of course....you are hesitant for some reason.
You are free to believe what you will concerning the authenticity of the various "letters" of Ignatius. Perhaps you are more expert in the matter than any other person on earth.
I am also free to say "be careful" in accepting the authenticity of the various versions of the letters extant.
I'm afraid that was my fault.....for even mentioning the incident.
>> Have you missed that there is also a “mixed recension” which is believed by some to be the “most” authentic. <<
No, I’m absolutely aware of it. But “most authentic” is a funny wording, since if A is a subset of B, and B is authentic, then A is authentic.
>> Perhaps you are more expert in the matter than any other person on earth. <<
Naw, very far from it. It’s just all the experts agree with me. Except for this guy neamed Joly, who wrote a paper in 1978. And you’re very much free to side with Joly. But even then, the argument’s lost, because all that is needed is enough to refute the notion that the Church Fathers were taken in by the Romantic literature of Leucinus.
>> Have you missed that there is also a “mixed recension” which is believed by some to be the “most” authentic. <<
And, incidentally, I referred to “shorter recension*s*” precisely because I was referring to more than one recension.
FYI,Dear friend, I don't look down my nose at anyone. I pray for those who hold the serpent seed idea to cease believing this horrible destructive belief that is not grounded in love.
I wish you a peaceful Blessed day!
Oh, put a cork in it. I was calling BOTH of us "unchurched ignoramuses"--so I'm not "making it personal". Or if I am, then I'm applying the same insult to myself.
Since the term is being applied to both of us, no.
Thank you for your prayers. I would hope in the future if you speak of me.....you would prayerfully "ping" me.
By the way.....I don't hold to any destructive doctrine if you are implying racial motives regarding "Serpent Seed" theology. I realize there are some who take those scriptures and twist them into a unrecognizable mass of hatred for the Jews. You can count me among those that don't.
Forgive me if I show skepticism concerning your claim "all the experts agree with me."
More validation that Christ, rather than Peter, is the Rock upon which His church is built. This is a rather long article, so I post merely a few extracts. Read the entire 38 pages here - http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was ‘Peter,’ a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be ‘built upon the Rock,’ displeased the Lord when he had heard of His future Passion, for he had foretold His disciples that it was soon to be. He feared lest he should by death, lose Him whom he had confessed as the fountain of life...Peter said to Christ, I am not willing that Thou shouldest die; but Christ far better said, I am willing to die for thee. And then He forthwith rebuked him, whom he had little before commended; and calleth him Satan, whom He had pronounced ‘blessed.’...Let us, looking at ourselves in this member of the Church, distinguish what is of God and what of ourselves. For then we shall not totter, then we shall be founded on the Rock, shall be fixed and firm against the winds, and storms, and streams and temptations, I mean, of this present world. You see this Peter, who was then our figure; now he trusts, and now he totters; now he confesses the Undying, and now he fears lest he should die. Wherefore? because the Church of Christ hath both strong and weak ones; and cannot be without either strong or weak; whence the Apostle Paul says, ‘Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.’ In that Peter said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ he represents the strong: but in that he totters, and would not that Christ should suffer, in fearing death for Him, and not acknowledging the Life, he represents the weak ones of the Church. In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both.4
But take Peter too, my brothers and sisters; from where did he get it that he could say out of love, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God? Where did he get it from? Really from his own resources? Perish the thought! Its just as well that this same passage of the gospel shows both things, what Peter got from God’s, what from his own resources. You’ve got them both there; read; there’s nothing you should be waiting to hear from me. I’ll just remind you of the gospel: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And the Lord to him: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. Why? Blessed from your own resources? No. Because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you; that, after all, is what you are. Flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Mt 16:16-17). And he goes on to say more things which it would take too long to mention.
Shortly afterward, after these words of his in which he approved of Peter’s faith and showed that it was the rock, he began there and then to show his disciples that it would be necessary for him to come to Jerusalem, and suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the scribes and the priests, and be killed, and on the third day rise again.6
So the Lord will repay his faithful followers who are so lovingly, so cheerfully, so devotedly carrying out these works, to the effect that he includes them in the construction of his own building, into which they hasten to fit as living stones ( 1 Pt 2:5), fashioned by faith, made solidly firm by hope, cemented together by charity. This is the building in which that wise architect the apostle placed Christ Jesus as the foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11), also as the supreme cornerstone (Is 28:16); one which, as Peter also reminds us from the prophetic scripture, was rejected indeed by men, but chosen and honored by God (1 Pt 2:4; Ps 118:22). By adhering to this stone we are joined peaceably together; by resting on it we are fixed firmly in place. You see, he is at one and the same time the foundation stone, because he is the one who regulates us, and the cornerstone, because it is he that joins us together. He is the rock on which the wise man builds his house, and thus continues in utter security against all the trials and temptations of this world, neither collapsing when the rain pours down, nor being swept away when the river floods, nor overthrown when the winds blow.7
Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ.8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.