The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
Regarding Acts 8:37, definitively via council or papal declaration? In no capacity other than a footnote in my catholic Bible, which is also found in my protestant bible and it state the following:

The omission is due to the fact that Acts 8:37 is missing from most extant Greek manuscripts.

Regarding the following why don’t you tell me; save me some time; sounds like you already have the answer:👍
Click to expand...
I answered this in my first few posts and it seemed to cause you a problem then. I do not think it will now.
Biblical translators. They removed 8:37 because it was not found in earlier manuscripts because it was an interpolation.
 
BrianH said:
I answered this in my first few posts and it seemed to cause you a problem then. I do not think it will now.
Biblical translators. They removed 8:37 because it was not found in earlier manuscripts because it was an interpolation.
Click to expand...
You had asked:

In what capacity or manner has the Catholic Church spoke on the following verses that are no longer part of Catholic Bibles? I do not seem to find anything.

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36

Perhaps the CC spoke, regarding the preceding verses, on behalf of the church universal, via the authority of Christ:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I guess what sort of bothered me was the following:

Can just any learned scholar, functioning as a biblical translator, remove a certain verse from the bible if he/she feels that it was missing from the most extant Greek manuscripts? Or, just the church leadership endowed with the spirit guided authority, from Jesus, to teach all…?

I guess that’s for each and every Christian to discern for themselves…🙂
 
joe370 said:
You had asked:

In what capacity or manner has the Catholic Church spoke on the following verses that are no longer part of Catholic Bibles? I do not seem to find anything.

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36

Perhaps the CC spoke, regarding the preceding verses, on behalf of the church universal, via the authority of Christ:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I guess what sort of bothered me was the following:

Can just any learned scholar, functioning as a biblical translator, remove a certain verse from the bible if he/she feels that it was missing from the most extant Greek manuscripts? Or, just the church leadership endowed with the spirit guided authority, from Jesus, to teach all…?
I guess that’s for each and every Christian to discern for themselves…🙂
Click to expand...
I would say it does not have to be discerned by ourselves. It is what it is.
Correct me if I am wrong. A learned group of biblical scholars and translators do remove a certain verse from the Bible if it was missing from certain Greek manuscript. The church leadership does not do this in any church that I am aware of except perhaps the JW? Or LDS?
 
BrianH said:
They removed 8:37 because it was not found in earlier manuscripts because it was an interpolation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah…interpolations again. :whacky:

Let us see if the Church Fathers refer to Acts 8:37:

Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.8, circa 180 A.D.)
 
joe370 said:
I have been told by certain non-Catholics that men such as Ignatius and Polycarp did not belong to the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but we know Jesus’ Catholic Church to which Ignatius belonged will last until the end of time, so where in the world today is the Catholic Church to which Ignatius of Antioch belonged, if in fact you do not believe it is the present day Catholic Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome?

“See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop…Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans 8
Click to expand...
Of course they were part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and it will last until the end of time. Did you not know? They were Orthodox! I find it highly offensive that because the Roman church adopted for itself the name of “Catholic Church” that so many think that “Catholic” is synonymous with Roman Catholic. Katholiki in Greek means Universal (from where we get the english word Catholic). The seat of the Head of the Church is not in Rome, but in Heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit…it is the very throne of Christ Himself! He is our Head, and we His body.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
 
OrthodoxJosh said:
Of course they were part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and it will last until the end of time. Did you not know? They were Orthodox! I find it highly offensive that because the Roman church adopted for itself the name of “Catholic Church” that so many think that “Catholic” is synonymous with Roman Catholic. Katholiki in Greek means Universal (from where we get the english word Catholic). The seat of the Head of the Church is not in Rome, but in Heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit…it is the very throne of Christ Himself! He is our Head, and we His body.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
Click to expand...
:)👍
 
OrthodoxJosh said:
Of course they were part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and it will last until the end of time. Did you not know? They were Orthodox!** I find it highly offensive that because the Roman church adopted for itself the name of “Catholic Church” that so many think that “Catholic” is synonymous with Roman Catholic. Katholiki in Greek means Universal (from where we get the english word Catholic). ** The seat of the Head of the Church is not in Rome, but in Heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit…it is the very throne of Christ Himself! He is our Head, and we His body.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
Click to expand...
What you are saying is offensive and lacks academic backing. However, I can provide evidence on the contrary. Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans for example. The term “Roman” was added by anti-Catholic rhetoric started during the “Reformation.”
 
Mickey said:
Ummm? You are coming up with all these strange interpolation theories. Frankly, I do not know what to think.
There you go again. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That is not a yes, maybe, or no. I believe there are interpolations. Your view is…
 
Mickey said:
Yeah, yeah…interpolations again. :whacky:

Let us see if the Church Fathers refer to Acts 8:37:

Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.12.8, circa 180 A.D.)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That still leaves around 100 years for the interpolation to have occured. It only takes…about 2 minutes, at the most, to write an interpolation. That still leaves us 99 years, 364 days, 23 hours…you get the point…
What is your theory for the difference between texts?
 
BrianH said:
Absolutely. That still leaves around 100 years for the interpolation to have occured. It only takes…about 2 minutes, at the most, to write an interpolation.
Click to expand...
LOL! Two minutes eh? Yeah right! You are a hoot! That quote was long before the earliest manuscripts that are referenced.

It is sad to me that so much of your understanding seems to hinge on supposed “interpolations”.

Let us look at another Church Father:

In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”
(The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise 12, Book 3, Section 43, Cyprian lived circa 208-258 A.D., became bishop of Carthage in North Africa circa 249 A.D. He was beheaded as a martyr for his faith)
 
Newsy said:
Please note, you have been asked twice to cite specific examples of “descendant churches”. This would give proof to your theory. I have asked for the time/ date of origin of the Catholic Church we know today, you have ignored my request also. Please respond by giving concrete examples, not ideas and theories.

Can you please give us examples of the descendant churches from the 4-10 centuries?

There is a huge difference between the Protestant denominations from the 16th century and the Church of the first 15 centuries. Thank you for addressing my previous post!🙂
Click to expand...
Ok.

The Catholic church of Ignatius split first I think to the Oriental Orthodox in 400s.

They there was the East/West split in the 1000s or so.

And of course the Protestant reformation in the 1500s.

Those are the big ones…we won’t get into say the Waldenses or other groups.

But they are all descendant churches of the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Ok.

The Catholic church of Ignatius split first I think to the Oriental Orthodox in 400s.

They there was the East/West split in the 1000s or so.

And of course the Protestant reformation in the 1500s.

Those are the big ones…we won’t get into say the Waldenses or other groups.

But they are all descendant churches of the Catholic church to which Ignatius belonged.
Click to expand...
In Zoology and Life Sciences there are things noted as mutations. Typology would dictate that for something to be descendant from that from which it sprang then all the elements would have to be found there.

Protestants are a type of Christian, not descendant from but mutated from, rather denominated from the Parent and therefore in type different. I am all for claiming my brothers and sisters in the family, they just need to knock on the door…I promise the door will open and you are welcome in…👍

youtube.com/watch?v=AX8I0-VLYbQ
 
OrthodoxJosh said:
Of course they were part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and it will last until the end of time. Did you not know? They were Orthodox! I find it highly offensive that because the Roman church adopted for itself the name of “Catholic Church” that so many think that “Catholic” is synonymous with Roman Catholic. Katholiki in Greek means Universal (from where we get the english word Catholic). The seat of the Head of the Church is not in Rome, but in Heaven with the Father and the Holy Spirit…it is the very throne of Christ Himself! He is our Head, and we His body.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
Click to expand...
I believe that there was one catholic church until the 11th century split, which left the world with catholic churches in the east (your church) - and the west (my church). I believe the church to which you belong is the catholic church, just as the church to which I belong is also the catholic church, and I hope and pray that the catholic church to which you belong and the catholic church to which I belong, will one day reunite as the one CC, just as it was for the first 1000 years of Christianity, with the exception of the Chalcedonian schism. 👍

A few years after the last Apostle died, Ignatius referred to the Church in Rome as holding the “presidency” of the many churches that together formed the one Catholic Church. Is the following quote insignificant, in your opinion:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [110 A.D.])

Peace brother…🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top