# Corruption



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm pondering over the motive in early church corruption. Trying to get a hold of what was going on at the time. We know that the victors always write history. They always portrayed their victory as if it was from God. Such as Polycarps burning, his "sweet smell", yet others were painted with horrible thoughts. My main point will be about Ignatius writings. The corruption of them. He was supposed to be friend of Polycarp. Writing at the same time period. But it is clear that this is not so. I suspect that the original writings of Ignatius were lost/destroyed and later replaced with spurious copies. But why would someone do this? You guys know that my beliefs are not orthodox, but I would never intentionally distort the truth in an effort to win. What caused these guys to have no regard for truth in an effort to have their own doctrine win. It seems no one would fight against God. But I'm pondering that they had no regard for truth as if it were real and were manipulating for political reasons. Maybe for power? I will point out a little of the evidence. Polycarp wrote just as our NT writers wrote. His writings had the exact same feel with the exception of Revelation. Yet Ignatius was entirely different, supposed to have came from the same time period. His use of words, entirely different, his dominion, etc. He would say things like "submit to the bishop as if he were God", "do nothing without the bishops consent" refering to marriage." I could go on and on and would be glad to show more and where it came from. But the thought has been shown. Also, Ignatius was supposed to be traveling on his way to be killed. Writing letters for the churches as he passed through the up coming town. These letters, now fakes, are what we have. If I were passing from one town to the next, 10 or more, I can't remember, I would constantly repeat myself, because we all have our own thoughts about what should be done, yet his writings hardly ever repeat themselves. It is clear that they were wrote not as a they, but as one. There are many other reasons for thinking this but this is the only one needed. So what we have is someone trying to win, to shape religion to fit what benefits them most, with no regard to the truth. Although I don't support his theology, if he were still within the truth, why manipulate to such a degree? Who and why would someone replace/ create falseified letters in an effort to change or insure the change of religious history. Maybe I should retract the "change" to keep from implying that it is not the same today as it was then. That could derail my purpose. Why would they do this? What motive? It seems to me that in order to go against God, that your not after truth. It has to be political? What was going on in this time period that they wanted to win regardless of whether it was truth or not. My use of "truth" is not whether it is true or not, but rather that it was an effort to maintain truth, or a total disregard as if it did not matter


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

Maybe it was an overzealous crowd that actually thought that it would be in the best interest of the faith, for their own good, to manipulate things in order that the truth might be clarified? ??


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 27, 2012)

I don't know what their motive was but if past history is proven false do the books ever get changed? This same distorting truth happens with scientist, police, lawyers, and others. Changing evidence and data to get the event to come out the way they want it to. Why would the police or D.A. want to convict the wrong man? Why would a scientist manipulate data to get the results he wanted to find?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 27, 2012)

You make very good points bldr.  I'm gonna think about it a bit more before I respond, but what occurred in the early church and the society is contended with still occurs today.  And the question remains:  How could someone ignore the true black and white record.

For the ones that you mention, I think it became more about "them" than about "truth".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm pondering over the motive in early church corruption.



Before you get to motive, you need to be sure that there _was_ corruption.  What makes you think Ignatius' writings are corrupt?  I've read all of Ignatius' letters (along with Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the Didache, etc.), and I'm not seeing it.  Granted, there are differences in their style and subject matter, but that's true for Peter and Paul, as well.  Paul's letters are much longer than Peter's and are more "theological".  That has a lot to do with who they were:  one was an educated man and a Pharisee, and the other was a simple fisherman.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> He would say things like "submit to the bishop as if he were God", "do nothing without the bishops consent" refering to marriage."



Here's the entire passage (for context.)  Again, I just don't see anything horribly radical in here.

_"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."_

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's the entire passage (for context.)  Again, I just don't see anything horribly radical in here.
> 
> _"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."_
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm


Hello centerpin, I appreciate your input, especially since you are familiar with this. There is much, much more like this, but more domination and suppression. I will try to point out some later, just checking in a lunch break. This is very typical of the third century. Polycarp was so gentle, Ignatius is forcing submission. Having had read them, did you notice how it reads as one book. If I had written to multiple churches, I would have repeated myself often, assuming the same needs and issues being closely related in each church. Or expressing my "pet peeves" you might say. Even Revelation, was written with overlap/repetative.  When you look at the "early church Fathers site, down under where it shows the different translations by such as lightfoot, etc, there is a portion, I can't recall, been a couple of years, but it addresses some of these. I should look for myself so I might better point others to it


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

I look under "early church writings". Click on Ignatius then go down under translators to "are they forgeries"


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> There is much, much more like this, but more domination and suppression.



I am just not seeing that.




1gr8bldr said:


> This is very typical of the third century.



Polycarp and Ignatius were contemporaries.  Both were born in the 1st century, and both died in the 2nd century.  Polycarp was a disciple of Apostle John.  I'd expect Ignatius had a similar lineage.




1gr8bldr said:


> Polycarp was so gentle, Ignatius is forcing submission.



Here's Polycarp from his letter to the Philippians (5:3.)  It seems to me he's saying exactly what Ignatius said.


_" ... Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submitting yourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ."_


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I look under "early church writings". Click on Ignatius then go down under translators to "are they forgeries"



I couldn't find it.  You'll have to provide a link.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/  Did not know I could do that???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

To my surprise, this is what now comes up;

About the epistles of Ignatius:
* "I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I couldn't find it.  You'll have to provide a link.



OK, I Googled "ignatius forgery" and found some stuff.  The first link I checked basically stated that since _some_ of Ignatius writings are considered forgeries, then _all_ of them are forgeries.  I haven't read the whole thing but, so far, their arguments are not exactly blowing me away.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/  Did not know I could do that???



OK, I'll check it out later.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

http://godfearin.blogspot.com/2008/05/were-letters-of-ignatius-forged.html
 I found this looking. Not sure if for or against view


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, I'll check it out later.


I always use the "early christian writing" as my source because you get multiple translations. I was shocked at the differences within translators. This would be a good subject because I can show you places where either God the son was added or it was taken out.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I always use the "early christian writing" as my source because you get multiple translations. I was shocked at the differences within translators. This would be a good subject because I can show you places where either God the son was added or it was taken out.


An example of this; Look at "polycarp to the phillipians" Notice in Chapter 12 Lightfoot has "our Lord and God, Jesus Christ..... But now look at Roberts/Donaldson. It does not have it this way. One of the two are forcing the text or taking away from the text. Corruption of one side or the other. Interesting thing is that in most of the older texts, Robert/Donaldson usually has the "God the Son".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

This taken from Ignatius to the Ephesians chp 6;
Plainly therefore we ought to regard the
bishop as the Lord Himself. There is much more that I will paste as I have time


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

I just read through 3 of the letters and I should retract that they never repeat themselves. They do repeat themselves. About deacons, submission to bishops, etc. Yet the middle portion, always seems to be different. His message. I will try to further give examples as I have time


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> This taken from Ignatius to the Ephesians chp 6;
> Plainly therefore we ought to regard the
> bishop as the Lord Himself.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> http://godfearin.blogspot.com/2008/05/were-letters-of-ignatius-forged.html
> I found this looking. Not sure if for or against view



It is most definitely against the view that they are forged.  From the link, on Polycarp and Ignatius:


_"I am utterly unconvinced here that these two are contradictory. The Church is composed of bishops, priests and deacons. Ignatius and Polycarp would both agree that we should submit to the presbyters and deacons; that Polycarp doesn’t mention the bishop certainly doesn’t mean he is unaware of their existence or that he would advocate rebellion to them or the unimportance of obedience to them. It shouldn’t be ignored that Polycarp doesn’t speak of the bishop, but we shouldn’t make too much of it either. Polycarp doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit. Do you see how far this “argument from silence” is going to get us?"_ 


... and here's the money quote where he addresses one who believes in the forgery:


_"Again he says:

'The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles  seals their condemnation.'

Which is basically admitting what this is all about. The “internal evidence” is that Ignatius’ ecclesiology is radically different from Killen’s and the Presbyterian community and therefore must be wrong."_


From what I have read, that last statement is spot on.  The "forgery people" just hate the word "Catholic" and are not wild about the word "bishop".  Ergo, Ignatius has to be a forgery.

I suspect that if the words "Catholic" and "bishop" were removed from Ignatius' writings, there would be no cries of forgery.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> It is most definitely against the view that they are forged.  From the link, on Polycarp and Ignatius:
> 
> 
> _"I am utterly unconvinced here that these two are contradictory. The Church is composed of bishops, priests and deacons. Ignatius and Polycarp would both agree that we should submit to the presbyters and deacons; that Polycarp doesn’t mention the bishop certainly doesn’t mean he is unaware of their existence or that he would advocate rebellion to them or the unimportance of obedience to them. It shouldn’t be ignored that Polycarp doesn’t speak of the bishop, but we shouldn’t make too much of it either. Polycarp doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit. Do you see how far this “argument from silence” is going to get us?"_
> ...


I will try to locate the opposing sides view. It was equally convincing. I don't know why it has moved? Or where?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> An example of this; Look at "polycarp to the phillipians" Notice in Chapter 12 Lightfoot has "our Lord and God, Jesus Christ..... But now look at Roberts/Donaldson. It does not have it this way. One of the two are forcing the text or taking away from the text. Corruption of one side or the other. Interesting thing is that in most of the older texts, Robert/Donaldson usually has the "God the Son".


Centerpin, did you catch this post? What do you make of the issue?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Centerpin, did you catch this post? What do you make of the issue?



I did, but I haven't had time to look at them.

Will take a look later.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I suspect that if the words "Catholic" and "bishop" were removed from Ignatius' writings, there would be no cries of forgery.



Is the word used "Catholic" or "catholic?"  Big difference.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

Here is another;

 8:1  [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to
the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let
no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church
apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid
eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he
shall have committed it.
 8:2  Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.

CHAPTER 9
 9:1  It is reasonable henceforth that we wake to
soberness, while we have [still] time to repent and
turn to God. It is good to recognise God and the
bishop. He that honoureth the bishop is houroured of
God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the
bishop rendereth service to the devil.

Yowsers!


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Is the word used "Catholic" or "catholic?"  Big difference.



Agreed.  

Ignatius wrote "Catholic Church".  Too many people read that as "Roman Catholic Church".  Based on the usage and when he wrote it, I think he's obviously means "universal".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Is the word used "Catholic" or "catholic?"  Big difference.


I think it was at that time, considered "universal". Not as we know it today. This I don't understand, but that is all I have found when I checked into it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is another;
> 
> 8:1  [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
> Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
> ...



Why does that deserve a "Yowsers"?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

Been reading through. My point was clearly seen. As the central topic of each letter is different. One letter for example, he goes into extremely detailed description of what the wild beast would do to him. How he would suffer it to attain unto God. How he would intice the beast. How, not to try and stop him. Yet after a whole letter with this being described in detail, for 80% of the letter, this is not mentioned in the other 6 letters that I have read. Why not? The answer to this is the answer to the OP


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Why does that deserve a "Yowsers"?


Just my opinion, I guess. I find it out of place for the time period, especially compared to Polycarps writings. It looks like Roman Catholic oppression. Poor folks back then were ruled by the Roman government on one side and the Church on the other. I draw the comparrison to the chosen being in bondage to the egyptians. Wonder if anyone else thinks "Yowsers"???


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Why does that deserve a "Yowsers"?



I'm by no way an expert on the early church....and have honestly never read any of Ignatius' writings.  

But...based on reading those two passages, I'm kinda in the same boat as CF.  Sure, you can read between the lines and extrapolate a lot out of it....or you can simply read the text and realize that we should hold those who are Pastors/Teachers in high regard.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> ....or you can simply read the text and realize that we should hold those who are Pastors/Teachers in high regard.



Yep, nothing unbiblical about that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just my opinion, I guess. I find it out of place for the time period, especially compared to Polycarps writings."



... but we have very little of Polycarp's writings to compare (just one letter, I think.)  Maybe he agreed completely with Ignatius.

Also, Martin Luther thought the epistle of James was out of place with the rest of the NT.  On the surface, I see his point, but I don't think Paul and James are saying two different things.




1gr8bldr said:


> It looks like Roman Catholic oppression. Poor folks back then were ruled by the Roman government on one side and the Church on the other."



... but there was no RCC then as we know it today.  Certainly, there was a church in Rome, and it was influential, but it wasn't telling the Jerusalem and Antioch Christians what to do -- not at the beginning of the 2nd century, anyway.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

As I type, there are twenty people reading this thread.  That's a lot for this forum!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but we have very little of Polycarp's writings to compare (just one letter, I think.)  Maybe he agreed completely with Ignatius.
> 
> Also, Martin Luther thought the epistle of James was out of place with the rest of the NT.  On the surface, I see his point, but I don't think Paul and James are saying two different things.
> 
> ...


That was my point, the oppression had not started by the church at that time. I was implying that these letters came from another time period


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As I type, there are twenty people reading this thread.  That's a lot for this forum!


I find things like this interesting, must not be the only one. Glad to have the input, of the other viewpoints. Both sides, that is what makes it interesting


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> That was my point, the oppression had not started by the church at that time. I was implying that these letters came from another time period



Gotcha.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but we have very little of Polycarp's writings to compare (just one letter, I think.)  Maybe he agreed completely with Ignatius.
> 
> Also, Martin Luther thought the epistle of James was out of place with the rest of the NT.  On the surface, I see his point, but I don't think Paul and James are saying two different things.
> 
> ...


I just read a couple days ago, don't remember where, if I could find it does not make it so, but what it's worth, Martin Luther himself said that Ignatius letters were forgeries. Dang, now I need to find this. Whew, that could be hard to do. I have been all over the place the past few days


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I just read a couple days ago, don't remember where, if I could find it does not make it so, but what it's worth, Martin Luther himself said that Ignatius letters were forgeries. Dang, now I need to find this. Whew, that could be hard to do. I have been all over the place the past few days


I was wrong, it was John Calvin. I found this, not the same that I had already seen;


alvin exclaimed in his Institutes:
With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration.

(Book I, Chapter 13, Section 29)
And again in his commentary for Philippians 4:3:
Those who maintain this, quote Clement and Ignatius as their authorities. If they quoted correctly, I would not certainly despise men of such eminence. But as writings are brought forward from Eusebius which are spurious, and were contrived by ignorant monks, they are not deserving of much credit among readers of sound judgment.

Let us, therefore, inquire as to the thing itself, without taking any false impression from the opinions of men.
Presbyterian W. D. Killen wrote a book in 1886, entitled, The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Here is an excerpt, where he mentions Calvin:
The question of the genuineness of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch has continued to awaken interest ever since the period of the Reformation. That great religious revolution gave an immense impetus to the critical spirit; and when brought under the light of its examination not a few documents the claims of which had long passed unchallenged were summarily pronounced spurious. Eusebius writing in the fourth century names only seven letters as attributed to Ignatius; but long before the days of Luther more than double that number were in circulation. Many of these were speedily condemned by the critics of the sixteenth century. Even the seven recognised by Eusebius were regarded with grave suspicion; and Calvin--who then stood at the head of Protestant theologians--did not hesitate to denounce the whole of them as forgeries. The work long employed as a text-book in Cambridge and Oxford was the Institutes of the Reformer of Geneva; [Endnote 2:1] and as his views on this subject are there proclaimed very emphatically [2:2] we may presume that the entire body of the Ignatian literature was at that time viewed with distrust by the leaders of thought in the English universities.
Elsewh


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Presbyterian W. D. Killen wrote a book in 1886, entitled, The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious.



This is the man the blogger was taking issue with (see my post #21.)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Been reading through. My point was clearly seen. As the central topic of each letter is different. One letter for example, he goes into extremely detailed description of what the wild beast would do to him. How he would suffer it to attain unto God. How he would intice the beast. How, not to try and stop him. Yet after a whole letter with this being described in detail, for 80% of the letter, this is not mentioned in the other 6 letters that I have read. Why not? The answer to this is the answer to the OP


This example of "content" is my initial OP. This is the red flag that caught my attention. Then after some poking around, I see that it was already suspect


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

I don't doubt Luther and Calvin might have had a problem with Ignatius, but that simply may be due to them disagreeing with what Ignatius said.  As I said before, Luther had a big problem with the epistle of James.  He called it an "espistle of straw" and stuck it in the back of his German NT.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> An example of this; Look at "polycarp to the phillipians" Notice in Chapter 12 Lightfoot has "our Lord and God, Jesus Christ..... But now look at Roberts/Donaldson. It does not have it this way. One of the two are forcing the text or taking away from the text. Corruption of one side or the other. Interesting thing is that in most of the older texts, Robert/Donaldson usually has the "God the Son".



I don't know what's going on here.  The Kirsopp Lake translation also has "Lord and God".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

Here is lightfoots;
and to all that are under heaven, who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that
raised him from the dead.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is lightfoots;
> 
> and to all that are under heaven, who shall
> believe on our *Lord and God Jesus Christ* and on His Father that
> raised him from the dead.


Was loving the cut n paste feature but for some reason, could not paste this one. It is the same as above except that it is translated by Roberts/Donaldson. 

"who shall believe in our *Lord Jesus Chris*t, and in his Father who raised him from the dead".


 So, if we could get our hands on the greek original, we could see if the word "God" is in this sentence or not????


----------

