An open letter to Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin, Actor, and “born again” Christian.

Praise God, you have become a strong voice in winning souls for Jesus as one who has experienced the saving grace of the Redeemer. May you always use your notoriety to spread the Good News.

It has been my experience that when an individual submits themselves to Christ, they undergo a deep conversion of heart. A tremendous weight is lifted, and they receive a sense of inner peace and joy. There is also the need to share this wonderful experience with others in the hope that they too will come to know Him intimately.

“Jesus said to them, … “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

But, what does it mean to truly believe in Him? Does it not mean that we must believe that everything He said is true? Does it not mean that we must be in total submission to His will in our lives? Does it not mean that we must obey His every command?

Many Christians believe that when Jesus died on the Cross he paid the ultimate price for all of man’s sins and therefore nothing is required of us except making a “personal commitment to a personal savior.” Let’s take a more in-depth look at what the New Testament Scriptures teach on this subject.

Rom. 10:9, “Because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Matt 7:21, "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

John 3:5, “Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Luke 10: 25-28, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live."

Romans 2:7, “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.”

2 Tim 2:12-13, “If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.”

I write to you as one Christian to another in order to share with you the opportunity to experience a deeper dimension of intimacy with our Lord and Savior.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 53-59).

Would Jesus command us to do something impossible? Jesus would have had to have made some provision for His followers to carry out the command to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”.

One of the fundamental differences between Catholics and the hundreds of different denominations is how the above verses are understood.

Isn't it true that all Christians are taught to interpret the Bible literally, except where the use of symbolic or figurative language is obvious? So the issue is: “Did Jesus really mean that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood?”

“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

The fact that the Jews questioned the words of Jesus tells us that they understood Jesus’ words literally.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus was speaking literally, and this can it be proved by the Bible and Church history.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

"So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is the Word, and the Word was and is God (John 1:1).

As God, Jesus performed numerous miracles. He cured the sick, gave sight to the blind, made the deaf to hear, and raised people from the dead. Whatever he declared came to pass.

Jesus declared that His flesh is real food: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn. 6:51; 53-55).

During the Last Supper, as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you” (Lk. 22:19-20).

Who, not what, was Jesus holding in His sacred hands at that moment? He was holding Himself! At that moment, the bread became His Body, simply because He said it was His Body.

Once again, Jesus held Himself in His own hands! At that moment, the wine became His Blood, simply because He said it was so.

I repeat, As soon as he declared the bread and wine to be His Body and Blood, they became His Body and Blood. As you may know, Catholics call this food Eucharist.

He then commanded His disciples to do the same, “Do this in remembrance of me”, thereby empowering them to do so. This was the beginning of the New Covenant Priesthood.

St. Paul was certainly a believer in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist:

And St. Paul said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

And St. Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle John for over thirty years, before suffering a martyr’s death in the arena in Rome.

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God's mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the thirsty. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God's gift face death” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6, 19-20, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God's will” (Letter to the Philadelphians, 4, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

And St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Try to gather together more frequently to celebrate God's Eucharist and to praise him. For when you meet with frequency, Satan's powers are overthrown and his destructiveness is undone by the unanimity of your faith” (Letter to the Ephesians, 13, [ca. A. D. 104 / 107]).

“You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, ‘Do not give what is sacred to dogs’" (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache, [ca. 70 / 80 A. D.]).

Justin Martyr, an early Church Father (105-165 A. D.) is the first person to furnish us with a complete description of the Eucharistic celebration (c. 150). He speaks of it twice, first in regard to the newly-baptized and secondly in regard to the Sunday celebration.

And St. Justin Martyr said, “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion” (I Apol. 65).

Justin goes on to specify that the bread that has been consecrated by the prayer formed from the words of Christ.

“And this food is called among us Eucharisti'a [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn” (I Apol. 66).

A second description of the Eucharist complementing the first is found a little later in his Apology with regard to the Sunday liturgy.

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration” (I Apol. 67).

And St. Irenaeus of Lyons said, “And just as the wooden branch of the vine, placed in the earth, bears fruit in its own time-and as the grain of wheat, falling into the ground and there dissolved, rises with great increase by the Spirit of God, who sustains all things, and then by the wisdom of God serves for the use of men, and when it receives the Word of God becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ-so also our bodies which are nourished by it, and then fall into the earth and are dissolved therein, shall rise at the proper time, the Word of God bestowing on them this rising again, to the glory of God the Father” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, [Inter A. D. 180 / 190]).

It is clear from the words of Jesus, St. Paul, and the Early Church Fathers that Jesus meant it when He said that we must eat His body and drink His blood.

There is an avalanche of evidence is support of the Catholic understanding and absolutely none to support the Protestant contention. Jesus was not speaking symbolically. The only refutation offered by Protestantism is opinion, as no proof exists.

To be fully Christian is to believe in these words of Jesus and come home to the Catholic Church. There is no greater intimacy than eating His flesh and drinking his blood.

I invite you return to your Catholic roots and invite all “Bible Christians” to explore the truth of Catholicism.

Jesus came that we may have life, and have it abundantly. This can only be fully experienced in the Catholic Church.

You wrote:

“I started out responding to your last post, and decided there’s no use.”

You haven’t been doing much to respond thus far anyway.

“You’ve got me pegged as a heretic and are treating me like one too.”

There you go making things up again.

“It’s ok for you to be offensive, but cry foul when someone throws something back at you. I apologized to you for being out of line. At least I was man enough, so to speak, to do that.”

I had nothing to apologize for. You went way overboard with that “certifiable” nonsense and that was far from the only thing.

“You posted so many words you don’t even know exactly what you posted.”

Actually I do know what I posted. I know it well enough that I told you what posts had what in it that you ignored or simply pretended didn’t exist.

“You tell me you didn’t say this or that, when you did.”

Wrong.

“I don’t feel the need to perpetuate a discussion with someone who’s not willing to admit they said something.”

Look, you’re the one not willing to admit some things.

“You denied many things you did say.”

No. I never once denied anything I said. You keep making up this stuff as if it is true!

“You go right ahead and pounce on the next person, you seem to get some sort of charge out of it. You presumed many things about me, you don’t even know me, but yet you have the audacity to tell me what I’m thinking and feeling.”

Feeling, not thinking.

“It’s a losing battle talking to you....you’re right and everyone else is wrong.”

No. Catholics are right, not everyone is Catholic and not everyone is wrong.

“How can everyone else be wrong?”

Again, I never said they were. This is yet another example of you just making thing sup out of thin air.

“You misconstrue what’s being said to your own bend.”

No. YOU misconstrue things. You didn’t know the difference between faith (as in personal trust in Jesus) and Faith (the Christian faith). It was you who miscontrued that, not me.

“I have tried being what Christ wants me to be with you, but I’m no saint. First, you insult my intelligence by insinuating I don’t know this verse or that verse.”

And how would you describe the fact that you didn’t know about those verses? Also, it isn’t about your intelligence. It’s about your knowledge of scripture. There you go miscontruing one thing for another. Someone could be a genius and known nothing about scripture. While others can know scripture well and have little intelligence.

“I don’t have them all memorized. Yes, I do read the Bible. You are gonna believe what your church says to believe.”

I used Bible verses - and you couldn’t respond. Why do you keep claiming something else?

“I am going to believe what the Bible says. I did deal with verses that were posted, it just suits your purpose to say I didn’t.”

No, you didn’t deal with them. Show me the post where you dealt with Mark 16:16, or Acts 22:16 or Romans 6:3. Did you ever even touch them?

“I am willing to admit when I’m wrong, you are not.”

I haven’t been wrong in this thread so there’s nothing to admit.

“I know, because your never wrong, right?”

No, I am sometimes wrong, but not in this thread.

“All you’ve said to me is “no, NO, wrong. You responded with a sanctimonious attitude, that is a turn-off for a christian, just think about that lost soul you’re winning to Christ.”

Look in the mirror. Think of what you just said whenever you want to call someone certifiable, or make bizarre anti-catholic claims based on nothing but your own fantasies. You remember your words when you decide to go off on a verbal bender at a Catholic about pedophilia so you can avoid talking about the actual topic at hand. You chose to get involved in this conversation completely unprepared. And then you came out with bizarre statements about you don’t want to read anything from the pope. Yeah, how terrible for you to actually learn something!

You wrote:

“I apologized.”

Yes, you did. Thank you. That was very good of you.

“So where’s the forgiveness of the “true church” otherwise known as the catholic church?”

Is this your bizarre way of asking me to apologize? I was not the one who said someone was certifiable, said all sorts of bizarre things (can’t say more because the RM will be mad), or falsely claimed you said things you never said. That was you. I was at times harsh on you - and at times I could most definitely have shown more forbearance and more charity. For not more often showing that charity I am sorry.

“Where are the fruits of the Spirit? You have heard of them, haven’t you?”

Yes.

“Jesus told us in order to be forgiven we have to forgive others, but I guess it doesn’t apply to catholics.”

I could have had more forebearance with you, but I ceratinly was not as way off base as you were.

Again, look at your posts. Your comments about me and the about the Church were outrageous. I only told the truth throughout based about what you wrote.

Feelings seem to dominate your life. You wrote (and this is only a partial sampling from earlier on):

“You are certifiable. I definitely don’t ever want to darken the doors of any Catholic church. False conclusions and opinions are what church doctrines are all about.”

“Honey, the Catholic church is the last place I want to be, especially if you’re there.”

“You don’t like Bible believing Protestants?”

“Do you have anything nice to say about any “bible believing” non- catholics?”

“You are now starting to scare me.”

“Now I know, firsthand, why people critize the Catholics. Your religion ranks right up there with Mormonism.....pssst, that wasn’t a compliment. Anyway, take care and God bless.”

“They condemn pedophilia? Right.”

“I just had an epiphany. I now know why you think I need the Catholic church, more money to pay for all those lawsuits you’ve got going from all those pedophiles.”

“Just ask Lucifer.”

“Why do pompous people like you, have to take something simple like salvation and complicate it?”

“You are making it sound like one has to jump hurdles and shoot out of a cannon to share in God’s inheritance.”

“SHAME ON YOU!!!!!”

“Lighten up for pity sake.”

“As far as being a “lone ranger”, I read the Bible everyday and have not let dogmas get in the way of understanding God’s Word.”

“Being Catholic is an organized religion, christians are followers of Christ, not a religion.”

“How do you justify all the pedophilia in the Catholic Church, much less the homosexuality?”

“What are you? A Pharisee?”

How is someone supposed to deal with that sort of posting? I kept posting verses and arguments. You kept posting your beliefs but often with no evidence and no arguments to speak of.

And here’s an example of how you didn’t post. You once asked:

“Quote the scripture that says baptism washes away sin, please.”

I posted a verse, and later another. Response? They were never dealt with. I may be harsh, but if I said anything to you it was either absoultely true or all the evidence pointed towards it being true.

“Go back through the posts and look at YOUR comments and you will find that alot of what I said is true.”

I did. And you aren’t.

“I actually did because I thought “hmm, maybe he’s right” and then I would have to apologize again. I’m not apologizing. I wasn’t wrong, you were.”

Apologize. Don’t apologize. Apologize. Take back your apology. Stick to something!

“It’s equally offensive to me when you tell me I make christianity up as I go.”

The truth is often offensive. Were you offended that I just pointed out that you apologized and then took back your apology? Do you think you could make it any easier looking like you can’t stick to something? Again, the truth is often offensive. You asked for verses on baptism washing away sins. I provided them. What did you do with them? Anything? Did you even look them up? You admitted yourself that you just read your Bible and YOU measure everything against it - and that REALLY MEANS you are making up Christianity as you go along. Christianity exists OUTSIDE of you. It is an absolute because it comes from God. You are really relying on your feelings. You FEEL this verse means that, and that verse means this. Who are you to decide? Also, you can’t even use the argument that you’re guided by the Holy Spirit because how is it that your interpretation is so starkly different than that of millions of others who also claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit and yet come to different conclusions. There’s only ONE Holy Spirit. He is NOT the Father of Confusion. How do you know you’re right? Based on what? Your feelings? You’ll deny that that’s what you rely on, but that’s what you rely on.

“I’ve had people call me “dumb” and “bigot” and “stupid”, so what?”

I never called you dumb. I never called you a bigot. I never called you stupid. I said, repeatedly, that you were wrong and demonstrated, repeatedly, that that was the case.

“They also didn’t get reamed by the mod either.”

You didn’t either - unless it was in private. You got a warning, a mild chastisement. I too have accrued the wrath of the RM.

“But my faith is extremely important to me, for you to tell me I make it up, it’s very offensive. And why do you tell me that? Because I’m not catholic? That’s just wrong.”

No. I don’t tell you that because you’re not Catholic. If you were Eastern Orthodox I would never have said that to you. But as a Protestant, who admits she relies only on HERSELF (see above for why I say the Holy Spirit isn’t doing this), there is no other possible conclusion - you’re making up your Christianity. You are your own church, really your own sect.

Again, revisit the issue of birth control which you sidestepped earlier and tried to turn into another issue. Christians - ALL CHRISTIANS - believed brith control to be immoral. Until the 1930s not a single Christian church or sect in the world, THE ENTIRE WORLD, approved of birth control. Every Protestant I ever met all approved of birth control. I know there are some who don’t. Hence, the organization of Protestants Against Birth Control. There are now other orgs like it too: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06111605.html

How does being a lone ranger solve this dilemma of “to contracept” or “not contracept” for millions of Protestants?

It doesn’t.

You wrote:

“How certain are you ot the authenticity of this Epistle?”

Certain enough since Orthodox, Catholic and many Protestants all attest to its veracity. The anti-Catholics believe differently because it satisfies them to do so. If many Protestant scholars can believe it - and orthodox Protestants as that goes - why is it that anti-Catholics do not? It certainly isn’t because they have any real argument.

Do I understand you to be claiming skeptics of the authenticity of the Ignatius Letters to be anti-Catholic? That is the reason? How sad.

Do you believe Ignatius wrote three versions of his letters? The Short Recension, the Mid Recension, and the Long Recension? If you believe that it is fine with me. If you don't believe that you must explain where the "extra" versions came from. Further, you mut choose the one "authentic" letter.

From one of my favorite "anti-Catholic" sources.

The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome ; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);

of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);

of Tralles (Trallianois);

of Rome (Pros Romaious);

of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);

of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and

to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).

We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius Of Antioch

Obviously the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the confidence in the authenticity of any of the letters which you apparently do. I imagine he deserves the label "anti-Catholic" also.

You wrote:

“Do I understand you to be claiming skeptics of the authenticity of the Ignatius Letters to be anti-Catholic? That is the reason? How sad.”

No, I said: “The anti-Catholics believe differently because it satisfies them to do so.”

You’re an anti-Catholic. You WANT to believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries. Not all people who believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries are anti-catholics, but YOU are. And like every other anti-Catholic I’ve ever come across who want to believe Ignatius’ letters are forgeries, you do it for the reason I gave: The anti-Catholics believe differently because it satisfies them to do so.

If you’re going to attack what I say, then attack what I say and not something you’ve imagined.

“Do you believe Ignatius wrote three versions of his letters? The Short Recension, the Mid Recension, and the Long Recension?”

No. Nor do I believe Mark wrote two different endings for his gospel, but we have mss. that attest to one or the other and both.

“If you believe that it is fine with me. If you don’t believe that you must explain where the “extra” versions came from. Further, you mut choose the one “authentic” letter.”

No. YOU must prove that the letter - and any and all versions of it - that was addressed to the Smyrneans is a forgery.

“From one of my favorite “anti-Catholic” sources.”

Which said: “It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.” So, just as I said, the letter to the Smyrneans, is genuine. It is only that not everything in it can be independently verified by another source. Thus, my point still stands. There is no reason to doubt the quote from Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrneans.

“Obviously the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the confidence in the authenticity of any of the letters which you apparently do. I imagine he deserves the label “anti-Catholic” also.”

No, but it does bear mentioning that the old Catholic Enclcopedia was written in 1909/10. Textual evidence has progressed since then and now you would be hard pressed to find a scholr who summarily dismissed Ignatius’ letters as you’re desperately trying to. Just in that year or a year later, for instance, a papyrus mss. fragment of the letter to the Smyrneans was published by Schmidt and Shubert in Altchristliche Texte. And three years later Wessely published a Coptic fragment.

And even your citation from the CE is extremely self-serving because you pretended this wasn’t there:

While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr’s death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: “Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith”, the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, “De morte peregrini”, written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as “testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of” (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

I never said that I relied on myself. Do you read all the words in posts, or do you skim over and post prematurely? I don’t rely on organized religion to feed me spiritual food. I rely on the Bible. That’s hardly relying on myself. You know, God’s Word, the Bible, which we are supposed read in obedience to Him. How else are we to know how to conduct ourselves or find comfort? Apparently, after “debating” with you, I think God is trying to humble me, and I need to be more receptive to Him, and less reactive with you. YOu don’t think anything you said was offensive because you claim it’s the truth. The truth according to who? You? The catholic church? I am not subject to your churches teachings or rules.

If I were to get into a discussion with say, a Methodist. We may disagree with something petty that pertains to church doctrine, but we won’t argue salvation. Yet, you did, you insinuated anyone who isn’t catholic is not a true believer. In the long haul we have a common denominator....a belief in Christ as our Savior. Why don’t we just rejoice in the fact that what matters most we agree on, and that’s salvation in Christ. Don’t sweat the other stuff, God can sort it out.

You weren’t as way off base as I? I will repeat myself, my faith is very important to me, and for you to call it into question was equally offensive to me. And don’t tell me you did’nt, you did.

I wasn’t looking for an apology from you. You started again listing all the things I said to you, after I apologized. When someone tells you they are sorry, and you accept it, you don’t keep bringing it up again, because then it appears you haven’t forgiven them. And if I go by your posting you didn’t. I can assume, just like you.

You told the truth, I told the truth.

I had’nt looked at your full post until now. I’ll I can say is....wow. I definitely don’t have enought time in my day to pursue this right now, but you can be sure I will work on it.

I will admit, I do get a little passionate about what I believe, but the true message of salvation should be most important, and it is for me. Have you noticed that most of the strife in the world is religiously motivated? Let me clarify, organized religion, which is manmade. Maybe, we all, as christians, need to get back to the basics.

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.