Iasion

Greetings all,

I want to discuss a very controversial subject - this is not a joke, but a serious subject that was forced upon me by detailed study of Ignatius. I hope that readers will suspend disbelief long enough to read and consider the issue. I make this unusual request because the subject matter is SO controversial and unusual that most will reject it out-right, as I did for years, until I realised my embarassment was interfering with my search for the truth.

I would really like to hear from open-minded researchers who are prepared to consider this issue on the basis of the actual sources, rather than from pre-conceptions.

I would appreciate comments on my Ignatius web page at :
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Ignatius.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Ignatius.html</a>

For those who want to stay here - I summarise the controversial issue in question below -


First,
let me give some examples which show that Ignatius did NOT have orthodox views about Jesus :

Ignatius talks of Jesus Christ in ways which are more Gnostic than historical - e.g. he speaks explicitly of initiation into the mysteries -
Jesus is not a recent historical person :
To Ignatius it is *the disciples* who were recently raised from the dead -

Ignatius often distinguishes between Flesh and Spirit, e.g. :
He extends this dichotomy to Jesus :

This flesh of Jesus is one of his main topics, oft-repeated :
He goes on about the "flesh" in very odd ways indeed :
The more one reads, the more it sounds like, well, drugs - yes, drugs - bizarre as it may seems, that's what it sounds like, consider this -

And this astonishing statement (and see Phil.4 above) to have only Christian *nourishment*, to avoid *herbage* of a different kind !
and this :

Odd as it may sound, it seems like he is talking about a drug-induced passion brought on by the "flesh" of Jesus, probably the Amanita Muscaria.

I note that I am not the first to consider this - Gordon Wasson and John Allegro and Clark Heinrich et al have all written about drugs in religion and Ignatius does come up in their writings - I had not considered it seriously before, but the more I look into it, the more it seems a real part of early religious expression.

It seems to me that "Jesus Christ" was the term Ignatius used to refer to the "magic mushroom" which induced a passion of drug-induced mystic transport.

I look forward to serious responses.

Quentin David Jones

james-2-24

I don't quite see how you got from those quotes to a "magic mushroom" theory. When I read the Ignatius quotes they make perfect sense as a proto-othordox polemic against various gnostic beliefs and an apology for the orthodox beliefs.

For example some gnostics held docetic views, ie that Jesus was not a "fleshy" human, but only appeared to be human. This would be why Ignatius is emphasising the fleshiness of Jesus so much. Clearly docetics would have a different view of the eucarist, which is why Ignatius stresses the importance of that ritual and its significance.

Other gnostic sects held "separationist" views of Jesus Christ, ie, that Christ was a spirit who descended on the human Jesus. This was considered hearesy and why Ignatius mentions "...for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ...".

I also don't understand your comment that ....
Ignatius even spells out what he means by that statement when he says "abstain from herbage of a different kind; *I mean heresy*".

In sum, I don't understand what you are getting at. The statements of Ignatius are in fact typical of many 2nd century church fathers engaged at countering various heresies.

Am I missing something?