TedM

Thanks for your observations. I am aware of the controversy. In fact Bernard Muller, whose work I admire, has concluded that the entire 7 'authentic' writings of Ignatius are forgeries. I intend to take a closer look at those Ignatius epistles for the very types of things you have mentioned, to see how accurate and meaningful they are.

aa5874

Well, if you knew in advance that the Ignatian letters are considered forgeries by those you admire why are you giving the impression that Ignatius helps your position??

I find your mode of argument extremely disturbing. It seems you will knowingly make statements about the Ignatian letters that you know may be false or at least highly questionable.

I have ALREADY unravelled the history of the Jesus cult and it had Nothing whatsoever to do with Paul or the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writings were LATE inventions and bogus writings were fabricated to historicise Paul.

This is a partial list of the bogus writings fabricated to "historicise" the Pauline writer--wholly or in part.

1. Writings attributed to Ignatius.

2. Writings attributed to Polycarp.

3. Writings attributed to Ireneaus.

4. Writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

5. Writings attributed to Origen.

6. Writing attributed to Tertullian.

7. Writings attributed to Eusebius.

TedM

I mentioned one person whom I admire that has this position. Both the Wiki and earlychristianwritings.com indicate that the "middle recension" is generally considered to be authentic. This is the reason I am not ready to dismiss them without looking into them more closely. I will be looking at the kinds of points you raised.

aa5874

Again, authenticity is NOT directly related to historical accuracy. The statements in the Ignatian Epistles about Paul does NOT indicate at all that he wrote Epistles Before c 68 CE.

And, you keep forgeting that the very Church and its writers did NOT know when Paul actually lived and did NOT know what he actually wrote.

The Church writer Eusebius claimed Paul was beheaded under Nero but simultaneosly claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written and that all Epistles under the name of Paul were authentic.

gLuke is considered to have been written after gMark and gMatthew or after c 75 CE and it has been deduced that more than one author used the name Paul to write letters to Churches.

gLuke may have been written AFTER Ignatius was dead--if he did live at all.

If the Church did NOT know what Paul actually wrote and when he lived then the same thing may apply to Ignatius