by Sea Breeze 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
All this perfectly aligns with scripture in Acts 20: 28 where it states that God purchased man with his own blood:
"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - KJV
None of us who were JW's were ever Christian. We had the wrong Jesus and the wrong God. No wonder the whole experience was such a misadventure!
I would be careful quoting the letters of Ignatius. Sorry to tell you, but they're fake.
Of course the Org says that the " real " Christianity was lost, so that they could find it !
And so they turned it into a false prophet commercialized $$$ version.
How faithful and loyal to his word !
Sea Breeze, I don't think I ever came across information about the Apol. 2, Syriac before, at least one referring to Jesus as God, even though I once owned several volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and read some of what was written in them about Jesus if to see if they ascribed full deity to Jesus. In those volumes I found that the earliest ones considered authentic (instead of forgeries) by the editor of the volumes did not ascribe full deity to Jesus! The editor gave a list of the documents which he said were forgeries - including many attributed to Ignatius. In the introduction to his volumes the editor said the volumes show that Jesus was not originally viewed as God (or something to that effect - I read the material more than 15 years ago and I don't remember precisely what the editor said in his introduction)!
The volumes I had of the Ante-Nicene Fathers looked like the volumes shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers_(book)#/media/File:Church_Fathers.JPG , except that none of my volumes I had their dust jacket.
What is your source for the English translation of Apol. 2? I found a translation at https://ccel.org/ccel/aristides/apology/anf09.xiii.iii.html and that source does not say "“God came down from heaven” - unless one is making a misleading quote like the WT often does. The translation instead says "And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men." Your leaving out the words "the son of the most high" immediately before the word "God" made a huge difference in the meaning. The next sentence in the translation says "And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods." Maybe where it says "unbegotten" it means unbegotten by a human father, especially since the prior sentence said "son of the most high God".
The next paragraph in the translation contains the following sentence. "For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit4424; and beside Him they worship no other God." There it does say "beside Him they worship no other God" and some people probably interpret the word "Him" as referring to Jesus, but it could be referring to God the Father (whom the translation of the text also calls the Creator) since it mentions God before referring to God's only-begotten Son. That sentence also clarifies that Christians considered Jesus to be begotten. I think the "Him" referred to is God the Father of Jesus Christ - not Jesus Christ, and not the Holy Spirit either.
DJW: If you click on the small numbers at the end of each Ignatius quote, it will link you to the source.
The original quote is from Michael J. Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
See other pre-Constantine church leader views here
Sea B -- thanks so much for taking the time to explain - I appreciate. Have lots to read above.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/Introductory_Note_to_the_Epistles_of_Ignatius says (note, I added the bold face for emphasis):
"The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time, this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader to understand its position at the present day.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnæans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and
scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day."https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/Title_Page/Preface says (note, I added the bold face for emphasis) "The American Editor has performed the humble task of ushering these works into American use, with scanty contributions of his own. Such was the understanding with the public: they were to be presented with the Edinburgh series, free from appreciable colour or alloy. His duty was (1) to give historic arrangement to the confused mass of the original series; (2) to supply, in continuity, such brief introductory notices as might slightly popularize what was apparently meant for scholars only, in the introductions of the translators; (3) to supply a few deficiencies by short notes and references; (4) to add such references to Scripture, or to authors of general repute, as might lend additional aid to students, without clogging or overlaying the comments of the translators; and (5) to note such corruptions or distortions of Patristic testimony as have been circulated, in the spirit of the forged Decretals, by those who carry on the old imposture by means essentially equivalent. Too long have they been allowed to speak to the popular mind as if the Fathers were their own; while, to every candid reader, it must be evident that, alike, the testimony, the arguments, and the silence of the Ante-Nicene writers confound all attempts to identify the ecclesiastical establishment of “the Holy Roman Empire,” with “the Holy Catholic Church” of the ancient creeds."
Ignatius letters are late and fake.
As for the original post. The gospel I would say is the gospel of peter, thomas or marcion. The expression 'clothed himself in flesh' matches peter best
I would say however that you are right Jesus was originally thought of as divine by SOME CHRISTIANS. Others saw him as cosmic (Hebrews, Revelation) or an angel like being. (Ascension of Isaiah)
Seven letters of Ignatius are widely considered genuine.
Eusebius, writing around 315, is totally unaware of more than seven letters from Ignatius. He named Ignatius & the seven letters, gave two quotes and some indication on their content ('The History of the Church' (HC), 3, 36).
Polycarp records this: "You wrote to me, both you yourselves and Ignatius [Polyc.7:2;8:2], asking that if any one should go to Syria he might carry thither the letters from you. And this I will do, if I get a fit opportunity, either I myself, or he whom I shall send to be ambassador on your behalf also".
I believe the quotes from Ignatius I provided are from the seven widely accepted letters. Nevertheless, many other early church leaders read about the same way about Jesus.
The unique thing about my original post quote is that this letter was written to the most powerful person in the world at that time, Emperor Hadrian - very early on. The gravity of the recipient would tend to make one think that extreme care was given in regards to accuracy in the descriptions of Christian thought and practices.
I don't care if they're widely considered genuine, they're fake. They were supposedly written by a guy who was being taken off to be executed for being a Christian... and his captors allowed him to proselytize on the way? Somehow I doubt that. The forger is probably Polycarp himself.
#/media/File:Church_Fathers.JPG){kind=link}