Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?
A detailed look at the historical reality of “ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” Chapter 2

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7OgLavv-w4

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMNYuxI7W5w

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNRNBM50Jbg

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gblGyavsC80

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OdOJeHTrHA

In Him,

Bill

 

[Peter]

Yeah, Protestants don't have any bias.

Gag, hack, wheeze!!!!

At least he got one thing right. The early Church Fathers didn't look like Roman Catholics or Protestants.


Yup, they looked a lot like Orthodox. Hmmmmm.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?
A detailed look at the historical reality of “ The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” Chapter 2

I myself haven't read much of the early ECF's.
Did the Smyrnians happen to catch this Prophecy/Revelation given to John?

Reve 1:10 I became in Spirit in the Lord's day and I hear behind of me a sound, great, as a trumpet,
11 saying "which you are seeing, write into a scrollet and send to the seven Out-calleds: into Ephesus, and into Smyrna, and into Pergamos and into Thyatira and into Sardisand into Philadelphia and into Laodicea"

 

[sunlover1]

Yeah, Protestants don't have any bias.

Gag, hack, wheeze!!!!

At least he got one thing right. The early Church Fathers didn't look like Roman Catholics or Protestants.


Yup, they looked a lot like Orthodox. Hmmmmm.

So did you watch all of the videos and
did you disagree with the authors
conclusions?
If so how?

I watched all but the last one, and
they were interesting.
The last one is not available.
sunlover

 

[JamesBellisario]

How in the world does White get this interpretation. So just because Ignatius is referring to these heretics throughout his letter doesn't mean that he cannot cap off his letter by further showing them another grave error in their thinking? I have read many articles including Mr. White's where he goes all over the place, starts off talking about a topic then ends on something different while defending his Calvinistic beliefs. Let me ask this. Why is it that Mr White interprets this letter different than all the Christians who came before him. who just happened to not be Protestant?

James Bellisario
catholicchampion.com

 

[BBAS 64]

How in the world does White get this interpretation. So just because Ignatius is referring to these heretics throughout his letter doesn't mean that he cannot cap off his letter by further showing them another grave error in their thinking? I have read many articles including Mr. White's where he goes all over the place, starts off talking about a topic then ends on something different while defending his Calvinistic beliefs. Let me ask this. Why is it that Mr White interprets this letter different than all the Christians who came before him. who just happened to not be Protestant?

James Bellisario
catholicchampion.com

Good Day, James

You have yet to prove the premise "different than all", thus the question is a fallacy.

In Him,

Bill

 

[SummaScriptura]

If someone were lazy, and had no desire to sit through the above-referenced online classroom videos, could someone else who did, kindly post the controverted point about Igantius?

 

[simonthezealot]

excellent series, thanks bbas wish all would watch..

 

[Ramon96]

O.k, I am not sure what James Wright is trying to prove, since I do not have to time to sit and watch 20+ Minutes of videos [I watch a couple of minutes of 1 and 2], so can someone please tell me what Jame White is trying to prove? I am not sure what this guy is trying to refute. I am leading to believe that he trying to prove that Saint Ignatius of Antioch did not believe in Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist [what a joke, lol]. And I find these videos while browsing around :

Re: Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context? Part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5toPe_7788c&feature=related

Re: Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context? Part II http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p80856_VmPE&feature=related


Any response?

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If someone were lazy, and had no desire to sit through the above-referenced online classroom videos, could someone else who did, kindly post the controverted point about Igantius?

Greetings. I do have a question. Is there anywhere in his writings or other ECFs concerning an "antipas" that is mentioned in Reve 2?
It appears to have the same four letters "anti" in it as does "antioch". Just curious. Thanks.

Reve 2:13 I have seen the works of thee and where thou are dwelling the-where the throne of the Satan and thou are holding the name of Me, and not disown the faith of Me even in the days Antipas/anti-paV <493>, the witness of Me, the faithful, who was killed beside ye where the Satan is dwelling.

Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch/anti-ocea <491>:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7265052&page=4

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Peter Yeah, Protestants don't have any bias.

Gag, hack, wheeze!!!!

At least he got one thing right. The early Church Fathers didn't look like Roman Catholics or Protestants.

Yup, they looked a lot like Orthodox. Hmmmmm.

Well, the pope doesn't wear a beard

 

[Trento]

A Jame White J.D.N. Kelley is not, but a Prominent Patristic Scholar of the highest caliber.

JND Kelly's Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood.

Greetings. I know the Catholics have heard about the incidents of the host being taken hostage and being desecrated.
I have pondered on this and thought perhaps this is a sign from YHWH to tell the RCs that perhaps their interpretation of the theology of the "Real Presence" is just plain simply wrong.

My own reaction to these events is really indifference, as the RP is practiced mainly by the RCC not by a majority of non-Catholics.

This is disturbing but perhaps it is also a message to the RCC and Papacy concerning the RP. I leave that up to others to decided. Thoughts?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7259422
Minnesota Professor Pledges To Descrate The Eucharist

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php#comments

 

[Yarddog]

Part of the problem with that the maker of the videos has is that the Church does not rely "only" on the words of Ignatius. There are other writers that speak of this as well but one thing that I've learned from reading the ECFs is that sometimes what is not written is just as important as what is written.

Where do we find one area of the Church rising up calling the "real presence" heresy?

When the same thing is taught in each of the Churches we find very strong evidence that this was taught as the truth by all of the Apostles, where ever they went.

Yarddog

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Part of the problem with that the maker of the videos has is that the Church does not rely "only" on the words of Ignatius. There are other writers that speak of this as well but one thing that I've learned from reading the ECFs is that sometimes what is not written is just as important as what is written.

Where do we find one area of the Church rising up calling the "real presence" heresy?

When the same thing is taught in each of the Churches we find very strong evidence that this was taught as the truth by all of the Apostles, where ever they went.

Yarddog

Good question, but since I never read the ECFs, I will have to let someone more knowledgable answer. Peace

 

[simonthezealot]

Where do we find one area of the Church rising up calling the "real presence" heresy?

I can give examples of some of the earliest fathers denying that Christians consume human blood, without exempting Christ's blood.
Did you mean to say transubstantiation instead of real presence? their is a vast difference, and sadly I watch way too many apologist use the words interchangeably when they should NOT.
Even many fundies like myself believe in a "sort" of real presence but NOT literal flesh...

 

[Yarddog]

I can give examples of some of the earliest fathers denying that Christians consume human blood, without exempting Christ's blood.
Did you mean to say transubstantiation instead of real presence? their is a vast difference, and sadly I watch way too many apologist use the words interchangeably when they should NOT.
Even many fundies like myself believe in a "sort" of real presence but NOT literal flesh...

Hello Simon,
I mean the "real presence".

 

[simonthezealot]

Do you believe in a real presence that falls short of transubstantiation in definition?

 

[Yarddog]

Do you believe in a real presence that falls short of transubstantiation in definition?

I am one that agrees more with the Orthodox. There is mysteries and to have to describe to the least detail is not necessary. The bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.

Yarddog

 

[jamescarvin]

I have read all of the early fathers numerous times. I noted along the way all references to the eucharist because it is a subject I was very much interested in. I also noticed the absence of any complaint about it, except by the Romans, which accused the Christians of "cannibalism" - which I think is a fair indication of what the actual practice and early belief was.

What makes the issue confusing for many is the way the truth of the events traverses through the truth of the sacraments. When we anamnesis (remember) we relive an eternal event, we don't just recount it. We experience it.

Those who wish to reduce the sacrament to a symbol and a memory need to ask what the sacrament is a symbol of. What does it declare? It declares that Christ is come in the flesh. It proclaims truth? What truth? Christ. He is the manna from heaven. If you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you (John 6).

Can John 6 be allegorized and understood as Christ coming down from heaven to become truly human and giving up his life for the world? Absolutely. But when we actually eat this bread and drink this blood do we truly participate in the new life of Christ? Or do we do so only symbollically?

This is the problem. We don't believe in a symbol. We believe in a transforming reality. We know that we must be changed. And we know that the world must be changed by knowing Christ incarnate and redeeming in order to be changed ourselves. For Christ alone is the Way and the Life and the Truth.

The author has to do mental backflips to avoid what the early fathers were actually saying in defence of his Baptist positions on the eucharist. He has to take every reference by an early father and repaint its context to fit his own mindset. We call this eisegesis. Don't we?

The better forum anyway for those kinds of ideas is writing, so that each point can be addressed and each text examined individually in a forum like this, rather than through a video that gives him opportunity to preach to his own choir and leaves everybody else too impatient to listen.

But if any Christian is concerned about idolatry with respect to the Eucharist, that certainly is understandable. Only, what about the church? Don't we become true Sons of God? How? The word for the blessing which produces transubstanciation or metousiosis by an ordained priest is "epiclesis." My question is what about the epiclesis of the church?

I have been in non-Denominational churches and Baptist Churches and I rarely hear them invoking the changing power of the Holy Spirit on their congregation. It is as if it matches the fact that neither do the bless the bread and wine in communion. If they do, they don't expect any change to take place from the words of their blessing. I have heard one pastor say "bless our partaking of the bread and the wine" but never says "bless the bread and the wine." What about "bless us"?

What is frustrating about that is that there are people struggling with sin and without the power of God they are left with the Bible as a "handbook" of some sort that leaves them to put on God's armor, but without the Power of the Spirit. Asked if they believe in the Holy Spirit the answer is yes. But in practice, the Spirit is never invoked. Yet these are the people who say you have to be born again from above.

And that is what it is all about. Isn't it? Being born again? Does anyone go to the Father otherwise? If they realized how close the epiclesis of the elements of bread and wine were to the epiclesis of the church, which is the Body of Christ, they would certainly have something to think about.

It is all one truth, where Christ is head and we are members of his body, made so by the Power of the Holy Spirit who gives us such rebirth and gives us a Grace-filled life, our eternal life, the Works wrought by God in us.

To me its hard to miss as a whole. And when I read the early fathers this is what I see.