Ignatius to the Tarsians - "not God over all"

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Perhaps Pseudo-Ignatius for the Tarsians.
Also on the Philippians writing.
They do seem to be the same writer.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
https://www.biblestudytools.com/his...us/ignatius/epistle-of-ignatius-tarsians.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=JCDTMPf1lpoC&pg=PA477

Chapter II.-Cautions Against False Doctrine.
I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only(5) ] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all.(6)

[5] John xx. 17. [6] 1 Cor. xv. 28.

Chapter V.-Refutation of the Previously Mentioned Errors.
And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He [shows when He] says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."(18) And again, "When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."(19) Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].

=========================

To the Philippians - Appendix

CHURCH FATHERS: Spurious Epistles (Ignatius of Antioch)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.
www.newadvent.org www.newadvent.org

Chapter 7. Continuation: inconsistency of Satan
And how, again, does Christ not at all appear to you to be of the Virgin, but to be God over all, and the Almighty? Say, then, who sent Him? Who was Lord over Him? And whose will did He obey? And what laws did He fulfil, since He was subject neither to the will nor power of any one? And while you deny that Christ was born, you affirm that the unbegotten was begotten, and that He who had no beginning was nailed to the cross, by whose permission I am unable to say. But your changeable tactics do not escape me, nor am I ignorant that you are wont to walk with slanting and uncertain steps. And you are ignorant who really was born, you who pretend to know everything.

===================================

He also emphasizes the New Testament dual addressing!

Chapter IV. Continuation.
And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was "the first-born of every creature," [1190] and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, "There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." [1191] And again, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;" [1192] and, "By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and on earth, visible and invisible; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." [1193]

[1190] Col. i. 15. [1191] 1 Cor. viii. 6. [1192] 1 Tim. ii. 5. [1193] Col. i. 16, 17.


===================================

John Pye Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=3c0tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA376

1638711249798.png

1638711393601.png
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member

This is indeed Pseudo-Ignatius, a 4th century Arian Interpolator​

It is not "perhaps Pseudo-Ignatius," but is pseudo-Ignatius, a fourth century Arian interpolator (as I previously informed you on Nov. 7) and the text is written specifically against the Patripassions (Cf. the chapter 5 heading), and there is no mention of Romans 9:5 at all in the actual context. Hippolytus encountered this same heresy of Noetus. Even though both understood the passage as speaking of Christ as God, Noetus erred in calling him the Father.
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Arians did not deny that Christ was god, but held that He was a lesser, begotten God, distinctly inferior to the Father.
 
B

Brianrw

Member
There are several epistles, not just this one, that are not genuine works of Ignatius. The consensus based upon the broader number of texts is that the interpolator was an Arian. The date of composition is fixed at about the 4th century, and the particular heresy he is writing against is the same heresy held by Noetus, who also abused "God over all" in Romans 9:5 to say that Christ was the Father. Hippolytus, who nevertheless understood the passage as speaking of Christ as God, refuted him. Pseudo-Ignatius writes, specifically:

And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son (Epistle to the Tarsians, 5)​

At one point I had the Greek, but at this moment I seem to have lost it. Thus his comment is towards those who abuse the designation "God over all," in reference to the Son as being the Father.

Here's an example of an Arian statement of faith:

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him (so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God); and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father... (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ.​
​
They will quote all the same passages as the Orthodox, and yet still though they affirm Christ is "God," they believe He had a beginning of existence.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
You don't have even one sentence from Epistle to the Tarsians?
As I showed you non-Arian quotes above.

Are you familiar with Jack W. Hannah?

The Setting of the Ignatian Long Recension (1960)
Jack W. Hannah
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263928

==================================

If Christ is God, but not God the Father, what God is he?
Click to expand...
Whether or not you want to regard the author as an Arian or not, the work is dated to the 4th century, so this indifidual is referred to as pseudo-Ignatius and you should not be portraying him as Ignatius above.

Please take the time to read the Arian confessions of faith. I think you don't understand their theology correctly. In Arian theology, the Father is "God" and the Son is "God," but the Father is "great," the Son is "little," the Father is "eternal," the Son has a beginning, and the Father is God over the Son.

I'm going to drop out of this conversation also. There's too many open threads and I can't keep up. As far as this topic is concerned, I'm going to close by reiterating what I stated above, that, "the text is written specifically against the Patripassions (Cf. the chapter 5 heading), and there is no mention of Romans 9:5 at all in the actual context. Hippolytus encountered this same heresy of Noetus. Even though both understood the passage as speaking of Christ as God, Noetus erred in calling him the Father." Thus pseudo-Ignatius writes,

And that He Himself is not God over all, and [not, or] the Father, but His Son (Epistle to the Tarsians, 5)​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top