Also, "Killen's thesis" notwithstanding, it is NOT true that "all honest scholars" accept the Ignatian letters as genuine. Among those scholars who have questioned their authenticity - with good reasons - include Philip Schaff (in his book "Ante-Nicene Fathers" and "History of the Christian Church") and Henry C. Sheldon ("History of the Christian Church").
The explanations for why some and even all of the presumed epistles of Ignatius may be spurious can be seen HERE.
And, let us not leave out the very critical point that gets missed frequently...the early church "fathers" did not speak infallibly, they were not divinely inspired when they wrote their letters and, if what they wrote contradicts Holy Scripture, it is Scripture which holds preeminence.
i knew if i read BB long enough, she would write something that she and i can agree, well that day has come!!
kill the fatted calf, this day calls for celebration.
here is what she wrote:
And, let us not leave out the very critical point that gets missed frequently...the early church “fathers” did not speak infallibly, they were not divinely inspired when they wrote their letters and, if what they wrote contradicts Holy Scripture, it is Scripture which holds preeminence.
now, under her own test, let’s see if Ignatius’s statement that the gnostics abstain from the Eucharist because they did not believe it was the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ “contradicts” Holy Scripture:
Matthew 26:26 now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said, “take, eat; this is my body”
Ignatius said it was his flesh, Jesus said it was his body. contradiction? i don’t think so.
next up, St Paul’s first letter to the Church at Corinth:
10:16 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?
so Paul calls the Eucharist the body of Christ, but is this a contradiction to Ignatius referring to the flesh of Christ? clearly not.
BTW- the two questions posed by Paul in 10:16 would be answered YES by Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas and every other member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
now, the gnostics would answer these 10:16 question NO, the Eucharist is just bread.
so the question i have for BB is - when Holy Scripture contradicts the gnostics and certain 16th century reformers, which holds preeminence?
i have spent the last two days reading what i could about the charge that the 7 epistles of Ignatius were fake.
i must say the case is very weak. for these to be fake, then the writings of Polycarp and Ireneus, both 2nd century writings, would also need to be fake.
in addition, writing in the late 3rd century accepted them as genuine, as did the whole Church before the so called Reformation.
what is never explained by those making the forgery claims are:
who forged them?
why did they forge them?
don’t forget, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was believed by everyone in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, it was not a doctrine in dispute. surely the “forger” had no idea in 1,300-1,400 years men like Calvin would come along and revive the gnostic heresy denying the Eucharist is the Body of Christ!!
so there would be no motive of anyone to “forge” Ignatius’s name on 7 letters.
the same can not be said of those making the forgery claim. they at least realize, that if the letters are not fake, then their doctrines are false. powerful motive to claim forgery.