WHy would I care what Ignatius has to say?
Perhaps because Ignatius, having been ordained by Peter, Paul, and John, was in a position to know the authentic Gospel far better than that of the Gnostic nutcases who wrote the trash you prefer.
That's a nice way to address the first person to compile the gospels into a "New Testament," as Marcion did in 140 A.D.
Marcion was also an anti-Semite who rejected the entire Old Testament and the Pauline Epistles. I prefer Christ's choice of Paul over your choice of Marcion.
That would be a trick, since the Emperor Theodosius made heresy punishable by death in 380 A.D. and it's around that perios that heresy was effectively quashed.
False. Death as punishment for heresy was unknown until the Middle Ages. Nestorius was not put to death, nor was Sabellius, nor were any number of other 5th Century heretics.
As for heresy being "quashed," what do you suppose was going at at 2 Constantinople (AD 381), Ephesus (AD 431), Chalcedon (AD 451), and all of the other councils. I guess the Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, and the various other 4th and 5th Century heresies just really didn't happen, huh?
I hope you find your way out of your gnostic New Age cult, because it's not the truth.
I must confess that the notion of not taking everything in the bible literally, seems to me to be a better excuse, than concocting a scenario where sin was temporarily not a sin, whenever a literalist requires an “out” when confronted with logical incongruity in the bible.