- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I constantly see him quoted out of context, truth is he is writing regarding docetism. Not transubstantiation or anything close to that.
Does any really read Ignatius to the Smyrnaens in context?
- Thread starter simonthezealot
- Start date
Erose
Newbie
Considering that the docetist rejected that Christ came in the flesh; they obviously would reject the possibility that the Eucharist could really be the flesh and blood of Christ, since Christ in their theology couldn't possibly have flesh or blood for the bread and wine to be transubstantiated into. Thus this was the reason why they refused the Eucharist.
So Simon you were looking for yourself a link to the early centuries you found one. You have something in common with the docetist.
Upvote
0
- Apr 17, 2006
- 16,461
- 1,919
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Considering that the docetist rejected that Christ came in the flesh; they obviously would reject the possibility that the Eucharist could really be the flesh and blood of Christ, since Christ in their theology couldn't possibly have flesh or blood for the bread and wine to be transubstantiated into. Thus this was the reason why they refused the Eucharist.
So Simon you were looking for yourself a link to the early centuries you found one. You have something in common with the docetist.
Iggy's not writing about sitting down and taking the meal..He's talking about the truth of the flesh and how wrong the docetist were.
Upvote
0
What context? The so-called letters of Ignatius have been altered, changed, expanded, and fabricated. No one really knows if we have anything Ignatius ever wrote or not. Of the letter to the Smyrnaens, we have two different versions. And none of them may actually come from the historical person known as Ignatius. After all, in the one place where one of the Ignatius letters is quoted in early christian writing, the church father didn't even know it was Ignatius that he was quoting and simply referred to the writer as "one of our own."
Upvote
0
Erose
Newbie
What context? The so-called letters of Ignatius have been altered, changed, expanded, and fabricated. No one really knows if we have anything Ignatius ever wrote or not. Of the letter to the Smyrnaens, we have two different versions. And none of them may actually come from the historical person known as Ignatius. After all, in the one place where one of the Ignatius letters is quoted in early christian writing, the church father didn't even know it was Ignatius that he was quoting and simply referred to the writer as "one of our own."
Many scholars today believe that we do have genuine copies of Ignatius' letters, yet like everything from that period (including the authorship of the New Testament writings) everything is debatable, and unreconcilable.
Upvote
0
- Jun 19, 2013
- 3,304
- 1,099
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Indeed, many scholars will tell you than none of the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark or Luke. There are at least 7 letters of Ignatius that are generally accepted as accurate, and mentions by Polycarp of correspondance with Ignatius indicated he probably was quite literate for people of the period.
Upvote
0
G
GratiaCorpusChristi
Guest
What context? The so-called letters of Ignatius have been altered, changed, expanded, and fabricated. No one really knows if we have anything Ignatius ever wrote or not. Of the letter to the Smyrnaens, we have two different versions. And none of them may actually come from the historical person known as Ignatius. After all, in the one place where one of the Ignatius letters is quoted in early christian writing, the church father didn't even know it was Ignatius that he was quoting and simply referred to the writer as "one of our own."
This is a radical, fringe position from a bygone era of textual criticism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
