stephan huller

Check out the Ignatius canon. That will put the issue to rest. Start with the Syriac (Ephesians, Polycarp or Romans = 'third epistle'). Count the number of bishop references per page (1 or none). Then read the longer Greek version with TONS AND TONS of added garbage. Now count the bishop references in the garbage. TENS AND TENS of bishop references.

TedM

Maybe I am not getting your point but I don't see how evolution from the Greek shorter to longer disproves the idea that there was NOT evolution from letter to letter in the Greek shorter versions. I am only looking at the shorter Greek Version. I am under the impression that the Syriac version is not considered to be the original. Are you saying that Syriac was first, Greek short second, Greek long third?

I see that there are just 3 syriac letters, and 2 of them don't have a salutation at the end. Wouldn't this be supportive evidence of their incompleteness?

Sheshbazzar

I did not quote all of the 'Bishop' material in in these 'Ignatian Epistles' nor did I make any efforts to arrange them in any chronological or sequential order. What I did point out, is that each is at pains to point out the office of 'Bishop' at their beginning, and by repetitious references, what I referred to as being "The Set Up".

In creating a false trail and a 'history' of 'Apostolic Sucession' it was absolutely nescessary that there be supporting writings placing their imaginary 'front men' in positions of power and authority in the early Church.
And having so by established a false 'history' that there were 'Bishops' in authority, the body of each 'Ignatian' text goes on to empathsize and expand upon the extent of that authority, until the 'Bishop' becomes literally the embodiment and voice of Jesus Christ himself, and stands in God's place. One whose words and orders to his underlings are not to be questioned, but to be obeyed as though he were God Almighty himself.
Of course the conspiritors of this system understood that one of their own among these 'Bishops' would always end being the 'top dog', The God 'Father' of them all.

If you accept and believe that these 'Ignatian Epistles' are the authentic history of the Chrisian faith and of Church organization Ted, and you are a Christian, you are bound by that admission, acceptance, and belief to submit yourself to the leadership of today's present True and Apostolic Catholic Church and to its presiding 'Bishop', the Pope of Rome. The God, Jesus Christ being present and incarnate in his flesh, and decrees.

Don't be gullible Ted. The 'Ignatian martyrdom' is a tale for suckers.
The churches could do just as well, and likely far better, under the leadership of a represenative body of equal Elders. And in fact would be much more stable than one in which a single and identifiable leader could be arrested and done away with.
A body of equals imbued with equal authority and respect by the local assembly of believers is a much more durable and flexable orgaization, and their unity arises from within, and is not imposed by any outside dictatorial heirachy operating from some 'seat of power' in a foreign country and city. The 'Roman' way of governance.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church would love to have you believe that line. If 'Ignatius' was going to Rome to die, it was by his own choice.
Evidently no one was chasing him down, and if any 'Bishop's' were concerned it would only be in how they could profit 'The Organization' by assisting in his 'martyrdom' by suicide.
But the whole 'Ignatian' tale is nothing more than an imaginative Catholic 'Saint' fabrication that serves as a vehicle to insert its 'Bishops'
(and Peter, and the fables of 'Saint 'Paul') and Catholic 'Apostolic Succession' into a fabricated Catholic Church 'history''
There would not be a mention of a single presiding Pope, that would only tip the readers off to the plot.
First step is to convince every group of Christ believers that every true Church group had a 'Bishop', and that every true Church group has to have a 'Bishop'.
Then the plotters send out their trained and authorized 'Bishops' to take control, and the congregations are none the smarter, being as they have already been seduced by the content of these 'Bishop' texts.
Oh there was a post-Justin conspiracy, for a fact.
In fact there have been hundreds of Catholic conspiricies and plotted deceptions that have been perpetrated upon the public.

TedM

Perhaps but that seems awfully naive to me. When there is dissension it makes sense to have leadership by an authority figure from a human psychology standpoint. It works for the followers.


It is clear you have made up your mind, but your evidence seems to primarily be your belief in conspiracies. You pointed to an evolution of the exaltation of bishops that I have yet to see you produce evidence for.

The fact that these letters were not even important enough for a mention until around 200AD seems to argue against this reconstruction.

stephan huller

I see that there are just 3 syriac letters, and 2 of them don't have a salutation at the end. Wouldn't this be supportive evidence of their incompleteness?

Why would someone shorten these letters? For what purpose? Who would you accuse?

TedM

I know of no good reason why someone would shorten the letters, but I also don't think it makes any sense to not have a salutation, do you? Might it be that the material itself was not clearly complete---the manuscript is disjointed in some way? Or, perhaps the Syrian writer removed parts he didn't like-- maybe was anti-bishop? Dunno..but it seems weird the way it is, without a salutation.

stephan huller

Why do you need the salutation? Like Justin Timberlake says in the movie "we don't even know what it is (yet)"

aa5874

Your argument is just going around in a vicious circle--No matter what you believe you have ZERO evidence that any of the Ignatian letters were composed up to 117 CE.

Again, the Ignatian letter to the Ephesians merely show that the author under the name of Ignatius did NOT know who Paul really was or when he wrote which in turn may mean that the Ignatian letter to the Ephesians in historically bogus or a forgery.

It has been deduced by Scholars that the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians may be a forgery or NOT a Pauline letter.

TedM

It was a letter. A salutation would be expected. It's absence suggests that other things were absent too.