Did church fathers Ignatius, polycarp, ignatius speak of trinitarian baptism?

[joclucsylv]

You can access the writings of all the early church fathers from the New Advent website. Go here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

Thank you for that link. I just wanted to be sure it would be from a credible source!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Would there be any writings from Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp on confession, the Eucharist ro perhaps the Blessed Mother. The point I want to make to Oneness man is that if he is truly Apostolic, he would follow what the Apostles did in those areas.
Thank you!

On the Eucharist?

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200),in ANF,I:486
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord,and the cup His Blood,if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,2(c.A.D. 200),in JUR,I:95

 

[NotWorthy]

I guess that since the word “Transubstantiation” was coined until the 12th century, your friend doesn’t think the Church believed in it til then.

Well, if they didn’t use the word, they certainly taught the teaching:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119

 

[Big_Dummy]

This is what he asked me on didache
Didache. A questionable document at best which mentions both forms of baptism. Lucy there are red flags all over this piece of literature. I seems to be a revision of a revision. I believe you may be reaching on you dates of it, as well.

This is were he sees Jesus Only Baptism in the Didache,

Chapter 9. The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)
Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Matthew 7:6

newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Bottom line, chapter 7 of the didache is formal teaching on baptism. This is a passing coment that fits Trintitarian Baptism. It does not give formal teaching on baptism in the Name of Jesus as he is reading into the text.

For him the Didache is questionable because 1) it formally teaches trinitiarn baptism and he would claim it has been added to the document. 2) the main manuscript dates to 1056 AD, and there are fragments from the 4th century, 300s which in his mind would be the the trinitiran era.

But, when you compare secular documents 900 years between a document being written and its manuscript evidence is NOT a reason to question its accuracy. For those not aware of this argument concerning secular documents, see Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell.

 

[joclucsylv]

Thank you all so much!! Big Dummy…what about his question about the quotes from Ignatius being taken from the long version or the short version. He claims things were changed by the church in the short version so that he looked trinitarian.

 

[Big_Dummy]

The other comment/question he has

I am sorry, when you were quoting from Ignatius (who, by the way most scholarship will say that his thoughts are modalist monarchian, i.e. Oneness, this because the trinity was not yet developed and the word “trinity” not yet coined) …were you quoting from the short or long versions of his letters? The short ones are most likely his, the long versions are forgries by latter trinitarian writers seeking a bridge to the Apostles. Could you look at that and ley me know?See More

How do I reply. Again…thank you all for your help.

It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity was not formally defined until 325 at Nicene Council. But, one must ask themselves, objectively what language would one expect to be used by those who believed even in a primitive understanding of the Trinity vs What language would one expect from Oneness, Jesus Only understanding of the godhead?

From the oneness side, one would expect passages to say that Jesus is God the Father. Whereas, from our understanding one would expect passages that speaks of them in Thee Thou or Me You type relations — examples would be like in Romans 8

26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the **Spirit itself maketh intercession for us **with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

34Who is he that condemneth?** It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. **

Both the second and third members of the Trinity pray to God the Father. Nowhere in scripture do we find the Father praying to either the Son or Spirit.

Note also, that the Son is at the right hand of the Father.

These are examples of thee thou relationships.

To find passages in the Fathers who used part of verse 34 do this google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=who+is+even+at+the+right+hand+of+God%2C+who+also+maketh+intercession+for+us+site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

in google type who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us site:newadvent.org

In Acts 13:2 for example the Holy Spirit applies ego, I to himself which is the hallmark of personhood.

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=the+Holy+Ghost+said%2C+Separate+me+Barnabas+and+Saul+for+the+work+whereunto+I+have+called+them.++site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Acts+13:2+I+have+called+them&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Acts+13:2+I+have+called+them+trinity&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=was+Ignatius+a+modalist%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

The doctrine of the Trinity, too, he plainly takes for granted, and we detect an approach to later definitions of Christ’s nature when we read in the same letter: “There is one Physician of flesh and spirit, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and son of God, first suffering and then beyond suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord.” No less remarkable are the phrases he uses to describe the Eucharist. It is “the flesh of Christ,” “the gift of God,” “the medicine of immortality.” Repeatedly he emphasizes the loyalty and obedience due the bishop as the transmitter of true apostolic tradition, and the necessity of unity and peace. Finally, it is in his letter to the church of Smyrna that for the first time in Christian literature “the Catholic Church”[6] is spoken of. “Wheresoever,” he writes, “the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius’ martyrdom and his important contribution to the development of Church doctrine make it fitting that his name should occur in the Canon of the Mass.

ewtn.com/library/mary/ignatius.htm

We should concentrate on showing Christ’s pre-existence as the second person.

 

[Big_Dummy]

The other comment/question he has

I am sorry, when you were quoting from Ignatius (who, by the way most scholarship will say that his thoughts are modalist monarchian, i.e. Oneness, this because the trinity was not yet developed and the word “trinity” not yet coined) …were you quoting from the short or long versions of his letters? The short ones are most likely his, the long versions are forgries by latter trinitarian writers seeking a bridge to the Apostles. Could you look at that and ley me know?See More

How do I reply. Again…thank you all for your help.

This is only true of Oneness, United Pentecostal “theologians”, not historicians outside their church. In fact, their books do not even show up in public libraries, nor in Christian Colleges in Michigan at least.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Mr. Oneness has just replied to me saying that the first 16 bishops of Rome were modalists (oneness). Is this guy searching for air or what?

google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=esqb,ratio&xhr=t&q=16+bishops+of+Rome+were+modalists&cp=34&qe=MTYgYmlzaG9wcyBvZiBSb21lIHdlcmUgbW9kYWxpc3RzIA&qesig=jklzoBkHRhnKaHvrMqHlhA&pkc=AFgZ2tmhGg-5U0ti87tzuwBtSGdxzbm-FIIPAatwvSdjA2u8eqK1oc7gG2vtymTmaAf8wgTupcqzqnBh1UhvucKbewWcHFuJhw&pq=was%20ignatius%20a%20modalist%3F&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=16+bishops+of+Rome+were+modalists+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

Peter says, thou art the christ, the Son of God…

Jesus says, blessed are you Peter … my Father in heaven

“The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all”-II Corinthians 13:13

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Grace+of+the+Lord+Jesus+Christ+and+the+love+of+God+and+the+fellowship+of+the+Holy+Spirit+be+with+you+all+site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

CHURCH FATHERS: Martyrdom of Polycarp
www.newadvent.org › Fathers of the Church - CachedSimilar
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic … peace, and love from **God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, **be multiplied. … And, looking to the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world …

One would not expect a Modialist to use the phrase “God the Father”

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Ephesians (St. Ignatius)
www.newadvent.org › Fathers of the Church - CachedSimilar
You +1’d this publicly. Undo
And Crocus also, worthy both of God and you, whom I have received as the … etc . me, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ shall also refresh 1 Corinthians 16 :18, … and Fronto, by means of whom, I have, as to love, beheld all of you. … Christ, which is the cross, John 12:32 making use of the Holy Spirit as a …

 

[Big_Dummy]

Thank you all so much!! Big Dummy…what about his question about the quotes from Ignatius being taken from the long version or the short version. He claims things were changed by the church in the short version so that he looked trinitarian.

Ask him for his textual evidence, by that I mean manuscripts, not English translations to prove that. He is simply starting with unsupportable assumptions. He claims because he reads into texts that early church was modalistic. If the early church were such, then why would Sabellius even cause a ripple in the pond? newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm

Sabellius was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I (c. 220).
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9401hotm.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm

If the pope was modalist, why would he excommunicate Sabellius?

He makes claims that things were added to Scripture like Matthew 28:19 that the church changed the writings of the Fathers. What is his textual proof of this? And, why did not the eminies of the Church point out the changes?

He assumes that the early church was modalists. That the Trinity was invented around 325 AD. Therefore any documents that supports the Trinity must have been added after 325 AD. He is simply reading his views into scripture and church fathers.

Most importantly, there is no manuscript evidence for his claims.

That one passage I posted where the hertics baptised in Jesus Name, and the Chruch had a trinitirian baptism alone is proof that the early church was primitive trinitirian, not Jesus Only.

You should concentrate from Scripture on the pre-existence of the second person of the trintiy – this should be set up as a seperate thread.

Ask him to explain John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 6)

Explanation of the words of Christ, “No man knows the Father, but the Son,” etc.; which words the heretics misinterpret. Proof that, by the Father revealing the Son, and by the Son being revealed, the Father was never unknown.

1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, “No man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him].” Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22 Thus has Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: “No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];” and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord’s advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

1. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Cæsar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation. For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: “I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.”

1. For no one can know the Father, unless through the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing [Him]; neither can he have knowledge of the Son, unless through the good pleasure of the Father. But the Son performs the good pleasure of the Father; for the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes. And His Word knows that His Father is, as far as regards us, invisible and infinite; and since He cannot be declared [by any one else], He does Himself declare Him to us; and, on the other hand, it is the Father alone who knows His own Word. And both these truths has our Lord declared. Wherefore the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation. For the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father; for all things are manifested through the Word. In order, therefore, that we might know that the Son who came is He who imparts to those believing on Him a knowledge of the Father, He said to His disciples: “No man knows the Son but the Father, nor the Father but the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him;” thus setting Himself forth and the Father as He [really] is, that we may not receive any other Father, except Him who is revealed by the Son.

1. But this [Father] is the Maker of heaven and earth, as is shown from His words; and not he, the false father, who has been invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the “Gnostics,” falsely so called. For none of these was the Son of God; but Christ Jesus our Lord [was], against whom they set their teaching in opposition, and have the daring to preach an unknown God. But they ought to hear [this] against themselves: How is it that He is unknown, who is known by them? For, whatever is known even by a few, is not unknown. But the Lord did not say that both the Father and the Son could not be known at all (in totum), for in that case His advent would have been superfluous. For why did He come hither? Was it that He should say to us, “Never mind seeking after God; for He is unknown, and you shall not find Him;” as also the disciples of Valentinus falsely declare that Christ said to their Æons? But this is indeed vain. For the Lord taught us that no man is capable of knowing God, unless he be taught of God; that is, that God cannot be known without God: but that this is the express will of the Father, that God should be known. For they shall know Him to whomsoever the Son has revealed Him.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 6)

continued,

1. And for this purpose did the Father reveal the Son, that through His instrumentality He might be manifested to all, and might receive those righteous ones who believe in Him into incorruption and everlasting enjoyment (now, to believe in Him is to do His will); but He shall righteously shut out into the darkness which they have chosen for themselves, those who do not believe, and who do consequently avoid His light. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like others, have seen, but have not, like others, believed.

1. For by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator; and by means of the world [does He declare] the Lord the Maker of the world; and by means of the formation [of man] the Artificer who formed him; and by the Son that Father who begot the Son: and these things do indeed address all men in the same manner, but all do not in the same way believe them. But by the law and the prophets did the Word preach both Himself and the Father alike [to all]; and all the people heard Him alike, but all did not alike believe. And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spoke with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: “We know You who You are, the Holy One of God.” Mark 1:24 And the devil looking at Him, and tempting Him, said: “If You are the Son of God;” Matthew 4:3; Luke 4:3 — all thus indeed seeing and speaking of the Son and the Father, but all not believing [in them].

1. For it was fitting that the truth should receive testimony from all, and should become [a means of] judgment for the salvation indeed of those who believe, but for the condemnation of those who believe not; that all should be fairly judged, and that the faith in the Father and Son should be approved by all, that is, that it should be established by all [as the one means of salvation], receiving testimony from all, both from those belonging to it, since they are its friends, and by those having no connection with it, though they are its enemies. For that evidence is true, and cannot be gainsaid, which elicits even from its adversaries striking testimonies in its behalf; they being convinced with respect to the matter in hand by their own plain contemplation of it, and bearing testimony to it, as well as declaring it. But after a while they break forth into enmity, and become accusers [of what they had approved], and are desirous that their own testimony should not be [regarded as] true. He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knows the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself. But the Son, administering all things for the Father, works from the beginning even to the end, and without Him no man can attain the knowledge of God. For the Son is the knowledge of the Father; but the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son; and this was the reason why the Lord declared: “No man knows the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal [Him].” For “shall reveal” was said not with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. For the Son, being present with His own handiwork from the beginning, reveals the Father to all; to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. Wherefore, then, in all things, and through all things, there is one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in Him.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103406.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

Read the last two posts carefully.

What would you expect, in this passage to support Oneness theology?

What would you expect, in this passge to support our view?

We believe as believers in the Trinity, that God is One, this would fit both views.

But, relationships, what is known about these fits our view.

 

[Big_Dummy]

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Not+that+any+man+hath+seen+the+Father%2C+save+he+which+is+of+God%2C+he+hath+seen+the+Father.+site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

 

[joclucsylv]

Big Dummy!!! A HUGE MUAH (kiss) to you. God Bless you my friend in the fight for truth!!

Now could you educate me on when the church put the bible together. Was it before or after the doctrine of the trinity?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Both the short version and long verson of Ignatius here suport our view, “God the Father, and of the The Lord Jesus Christ”. …

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians: Long Version
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, which has obtained mercy through love, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly,[1] in the passion of our Lord Jesus, and is filled with all mercy through His resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially to those who are in unity with the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed by the will of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His own will, has firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands, against which the winds and the floods have beaten, yet have not been able to overthrow it:[2] yea, and may spiritual wickedness never be able to do so, but be thoroughly weakened by the power of Jesus Christ our Lord.

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Epistle_of_Ignatius_to_the_Philadelphians:_Long_Version

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians: **Short Version **Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly[1] in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Epistle_of_Ignatius_to_the_Philadelphians:_Short_Version

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Ignatius&fulltext=Search

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=esqb,ratio&xhr=t&q=Epistle+of+Ignatius+to+the+Philadelphians%3A+Short+Version&cp=56&qe=RXBpc3RsZSBvZiBJZ25hdGl1cyB0byB0aGUgUGhpbGFkZWxwaGlhbnM6IFNob3J0IFZlcnNpb24&qesig=yLYHM9vv0-nye7fwBorapQ&pkc=AFgZ2tmWZFX_k8ngHXuxl_lpH50Somt4BopW6geC_7H3ovCjl4AbDqg8UnBtk7TFRGDbmbZVeBCyj1fh8hKPJQu2kgwiwLt9wg&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Epistle+of+Ignatius+to+the+Philadelphians:+Short+Version&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

 

[NotWorthy]

Big Dummy!!! A HUGE MUAH (kiss) to you. God Bless you my friend in the fight for truth!!

Now could you educate me on when the church put the bible together. Was it before or after the doctrine of the trinity?

the Nicene Creed (325 and 380AD) preceded the formal Canon of Scripture (390-410AD). However the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both “the Father and the Son” was included in the 700’s. Prior to that, the Holy Spirit was said to proceed “From the Father through the Son”, I think. This change was made to correctly teach in defense against the heresies monophysitism and Mannicheans (?).

 

[Big_Dummy]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Long Version

Chapter XXI.—Exhortations to steadfastness and unity.
Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually,[92] through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,”[93] but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Epistle_of_Ignatius_to_the_Ephesians:_Long_Version#Chapter_XXI…E2.80.94Exhortations_to_steadfastness_and_unity.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Short Version

Chapter XXI.—Exhortations to steadfastness and unity.
Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually,[52] through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,”[53] but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Epistle_of_Ignatius_to_the_Ephesians:_Short_Version#Chapter_XXI…E2.80.94Exhortations_to_steadfastness_and_unity.

One need only scroll down to, and read each document for themselves, when any of these documents speak of the godhead it is trinitirian.

St. Ignatius
Epistle to the Ephesians: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to the Magnesians: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to the Trallians: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to the Romans: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to the Philadelphians: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to the Smyrneans: (Short) (Long)
Epistle to St. Polycarp: (Short) (Long)
Related: The Martyrdom of Ignatius

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

 

[Big_Dummy]

The canon of scripture Frederick Fyvie Bruce

The Origin of the Bible Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Philip Wesley Comfort

The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance Bruce M. Metzger

A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament By Brooke Foss Westcott

The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance Bruce M. Metzger

Some books worth reading on the canon of the NT are above. The church did not define formally the complete NT canon until

The Canon approved by the third Synod of Carthage (397 CE)

The first council that accepted the present New Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE); however, the acts of the council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the third Synod of Carthage.

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the] New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.
Note that Hebrews is listed separately from the other 13 epistles.

According to Zahn, in 419 another Synod held at Carthage gave the concluding words in the following form:

… Fourteen Epistles of Paul … the Revelation of John, one book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml

 

[joclucsylv]

Not Worthy and Big Dummy
Thank you both for your help. We have stopped him from commenting. His last straw to try to get his daughter to convert back to oneness and my brother into oneness is that he has sent a timeline to him. I will post the timeline so you can have a look at it and comment.

One thing I asked him and he couldn’t answer was why does he love a book put together by what he calls a bunch of pagans. The Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to decipher what was and wasn’t scripture. He calls us pagans, but yet he LOVES the bible.

I can’t believe how people can be brainwashed so easy. I feel bad for his followers who don’t know any better. I thank God that my brother is strong in his faith…thanks to my mom and dad!!!

 

[Big_Dummy]

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He would also claim most likely that the church went apostate. Jesus himself told us, “that the gates of hell shall not” overcome the church. How does he handle that contradiction?

I agree, Jesus also taught that wheat and tares, true and false Christians. But, the
church itself will not fall.