B I B L E S T U D Y
TITLE: "IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" WAS NEITHER A "BISHOP" NOR "A DISCIPLE OF JOHN"
"Ignatius of Antioch" not only "coined" the name "Catholic", but also "introduced" the Catholic "Mass" as a "replacement" for the Passover Seder commanded by Christ. It is "claimed" by the Catholic church, that he was an "early Bishop" of the city of "Antioch", and a "disciple" of "the Apostle John". However, from the New Testament, it is learned that "neither" of these claims, were in fact, true. "Ignatius of Antioch" was someone else, in reality.
"IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" WAS NOT "THE CHILD" CHRIST HELD IN HIS ARMS
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
The devotees of "Ignatius of Antioch" were propagating a lie concerning his background, in this claim.
(1) As you can see from the texts, the narrative does not record Christ picking up any of these children. They were held by the parents (as they are described as "infants"), and he "put his hands on them, and prayed" for them. (At no point is the "plural number" not used)
(2) "Ignatius of Antioch" was Gentile, not "Jewish". The "blessing of the children" was customary practice in Judaism, but usually done by the Rabbi with the "synagogue eleders". Ignatius would have had "no context" to engage this ritual (especially given his open rejection of everything "Jewish")
(3) Geographically, Christ was in route to Jerusalem, just prior to arriving at Jericho. (Luke 17:11,18:35) Other than for the creation of a frabication, "Ignatius of Antioch" would not have been "geographically present" for this event. It occured in, or just after the reference, to a "certain village" (Luke 17:12). This was the "country-side" of Palestine/Judea. There would have been no reason for a "Syrian" from "Antioch" (a very large city), to have even been physically present (in the isolated country-side) of rural Palestine.
(4) The time-line doesn't match. Eusebius places his death in the year 108 AD, but most scholars place it around the year 140 AD. That would have made him at the very least, 110 Years old, at death. (At least)
(5) It is said he "converted to Christianity" at a "very young age". However, unless his "Syrian parents" were also "already converted" to "Judaism", he would not have been "offered by them" to the "Rabbi" (as an infant) for his "Rabbinical blessing" (to begin with).
But this kind of "fabrication" is how the "myth" of "Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch" was "created" by what is called "Latin fathers" by the Roman Catholic Church. (It's pure shameless "fabrication")
"IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" WAS NEVER KNOWN BY JOHN
Along with being a Gentile Syrian of Gentile Syrian parents, who just happens to be in an isolated "rural country-side village" of Palestine/Judea at the same exact moment Christ is "passing through", and who just happens (for no appearant logical reason) offers their Gentile Syrian infant (who was just previously born in this rural village, because he is "still an infant"), to a controversial local Jewish Rabbi, for a Jewish Blessing"... he was also supposedly, this very close and very very dear friend of the Apostle John, who also authored of the book of Revelation. (Which just happens to mention "Nicolaitans" from "Antioch") What are the random odds of that?
John had a lot of people close to him in his ministry. And he mentions them in his letters, because they were. And he also mentions a number of other people as part of his narratives about events he wants to re-tell. In fact, John mentions well over 2 dozen people by name. (Many of whom were "close" to him). Ironically, there is no such "Syrian from Antioch" named "Ignatius" anywhere, in any of his references. (Not once). Not even the "hint" of such a person.
The only thing "John" ever even remotely mentions from "Antioch" Syria, is a group of Gentile "impostures" who claim to be "Apostolic", but are "bold-faced liars", he calls "Nicolaitans". (And worst of all, they "reject the flesh of Christ" [in the Passover meal]) also known as the "Lord's Supper".
PEOPLE MENTIONED BY JOHN
(No Mention of "Ignatius of Antioch")
John 1:15 - John The Baptist
John 1:17 - Moses
John 1:12 - Elijah
John 1:40 - Andrew
John 1:40 - Simon Peter
John 1:42 - Cephas
John 1:43 - Philip
John 1:45 - Nathanael
John 2:1 - Mary
John 3:1 - Nicodemus
John 6:71 - Judas Iscariot
John 8:39 - Abraham
John 10:23 - Solomon
John 11:1 - Lazarus
John 11:1 - Martha
John 11:16 - Thomas/Didymus
John 11:49 - Caiaphas
John 12:38 - Isaiah
John 18:24 - Annas
John 18:33 - Pilate
John 18:40 - Barabbas
John 19:25 - Cleophas
John 20:1 - Mary Magdalene
John 21:2 - Zebedee
3 John 1:1 - Gaius
3 John 1:9 - Diotrephes
3 John 1:12 - Demetrius
"IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" WAS NOT EVEN A "CHRISTIAN BISHOP"
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
It is claimed that this Gentile Syrian from "Antioch", was the "third bishop" of "Antioch", whose "linage" was directly established by the "Apostle Peter". Ironically appearantly, "Peter" who was married, forgot to inform "Ingatius of Antioch" that being "married" was the first qualification of a "ἐπίσκοπος", was that one had to be married and have children. Thus being a real "father". Not "a celibate", who is just one fictitiously in a "title". This was the nominal customary practice in "Judaism" (and why "Ignatius of Antioch" adopts the exact "opposite" of the practice) Everything "Ignatius of Antioch" is doing, is "an exact opposite" (or "antithesis"), inlcuding what he is calling his "Christ".
WHO WAS "IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" ?
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry...
The "coming" of what "Ignatius of Antioch" really was in history, was "anticipated" by all the "Apostles", because that "anticipation" began with teachings given to them by Christ himself, recorded in the Gospels (per example Matt. 7:21-23). Paul mentions the prophecy numerous times in his own writings as well, and adds details to it. Speaking to Timothy (who actually was a real New Testament "ἐπίσκοπος") Paul mentions this "movement" practices "celibacy" among it's clergy (and rejects the "Jewish" custom requiring "fatherhood" and "marriage"). He calls them apostates, over that departure. (It was not an "incidental requirement")
"Ignatius of Antioch" was pracisely that variety of "clergy". His "doctrines of departure" (which he was calling "Catholic") were precisely that. They were ("doctrines of apostacy"), which Paul labeled "seducing spirits" teaching "doctrines of devils". (Paul also identified assimilating gentile "feasts" as "fellowshiping with devils", [1 Cor. 10:20]) so you can see why he considered these "doctrines" inspired by the assimilation of "gentile religious practices" to also be "doctrines of devils". Paul was not the "author" of what some erroneously call "Pauline Christians". "Pauline Christians" were "Nicolaitans", not "Pauline". Paul made himself quite clear on the matter of "assimilation with paganism" (it was "fellowship with "devils" [1 Cor. 10:20]). And the theology of it, he called "doctrines of devils". And its "clergy", he called "hypocrites" with "seared" consciences. And the "spirit" behind it, not the "holy spirit", but "seducing spirits" (plural). Notice the use of the plural, in reference to it's "spirit". (Echoing it's "doctrine of God", also in the"plural")
WHY DID "IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" FALSLEY "CLAIM" TO BE "APOSTOLIC"?
1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Because the "Nicolaitans" were "gentiles" and literally "inventing" a new "gentile religion", but claiming it came from "the Apostles", the only way they had "access" to Apostolic communities, was through the intentional practice of "deceit" (that is claiming they were "Apostolic"), when in fact, they were not. The constant repitition of the false claim, was a form of "over-compensation". But anyone actually familiar with New Testament teaching and tradition, would have easily seen through these false claims (precisely as John notes happened with the real disciples at Ephesus) [Rev. 2:2, 6]
"IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH" IN HIS OWN WORDS
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luk 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (Note: "The Passover" is called "the feast of unleavened bread" among Jews)
"Ignatius of Antioch" admits in his own words, there were a substantial number of believers [such that he cites it], who "refused" to participate in his "replacement" of the commanded Passover meal. Stating openly to "Ignatius" (which he even repeats) "it was not the flesh of Christ". (Which clearly, it was not)
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
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.
Here, "Ignatius of Antioch" very subtly changes the concept taught by Christ. Instead of wherever there are two or three (Christ will be in their midsts), it is now "Where the Bishop" appears (then there is Christ), then there is "the Catholic Church". Despite the fact, that change is subtle it is an exact "opposite".
In order to have a quorum for a Jewish synagogue, you had to have 10 men present. Christ reforms the arbitrary rabbinical standard, back to the Torah requirement [Deu 17:6,19:15], of simply "two witnesses". And he puts nothing in between them and himself (or God's judgement).
The teaching was not about "religious services", it was about confronting someone who was a member of the "ecclesia", and was "sinning against you", personally. (Matt.18:15-20 - go back and read it), a "fellow brother", doing direct personal harm, to you, ...personally. (i.e., "sin against you") Not "against God", not "against the community", not "against your doctrine", but "you" personally. (against you)
The reference to Christ being "in their midst" was that they could "suffer" (divine) judgement, as a result of that "witness". "Ignatius" turns the concept into "wherever the Bishop" appears, there is "Christ". No "Bishop", no "Christ". The "Bishop" literally "takes the place of" Christ in the teaching of "Ignatius of Antioch". The concept is also completely "stripped" from it's "theological context" in the Torah, and turned into "a formula for religious services", which it had "nothing" to do with, in Christ's teaching, to begin with. Christ's "presence", is granted to even a "single" disciple. (Matt.25:40, 28:20, Acts 9:11)
It is perfectly "clear" in a direct comparison of the words of "Ignatius of Antioch", with those in the New Testament, "Ignatius of Antioch" had "nothing" to do with the New Testament community and it's "real Apostles" or "real Christ". His words are "exact opposites" of what is written in the New Testament, even down to what qualifies one, to even be a "Bishop".
"Ignatius of Antioch" was clearly a "Nicolaitan" imposture. (Not a "disciple of the Apostle", that actually called them out) The fraudulent claim "Ignatius of Antioch" was "the child held by Christ" and the very very dear friend of the Apostle John (was the transparant "cover-story", for the fact, "Ignatious of Antioch" was precisely the same group, John identified from "Antioch", as "the Nicolaitans")... whom he also called "antichrists", when they were in Ephesus. [1 John 2:18]
"Ignatious of Antioch" was not the "Third Bishop of Antioch". He was an "antichrist". All those who claim "Ignatius of Antioch" as their theological or spiritual "father", share in the same title, that was given to it, by John. (And for the very same reasons, he gave it)