Featured Are all the letters of Ignatius of Antioch forgeries?

I’d be interested to know what evidence you have that Ignatius writings were forgeries.

 

The scholarly consensus (of which Baptists are blissfully ignorant) is that 7 of both Paul's and Ignatius' epistles are ignorant and 6 are spurious. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is theologically important for at least 3 reasons:

(1) The first century church of Antioch becomes the center of the apostolic Gentile mission and, as such, is the first place to coin both the term "Christian" and the term "Catholic" to describe first-century followers of Jesus. As the 3rd bishop of Antioch, Ignatius provides important confirmation that Catholicism can be traced to the apostolic church.
(1) He is the first writer, apart from Matthew and Luke, Ignatius is the first writer to express faith in Jesus' virgin birth. No, the virgin birth is attested neither by Paul nor John!
(2) Ignatius confirms the Catholic recognition that John 6:53-58 implies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharis and thus Ignatius calls the Communion elements "the medicine of immortality." Our moderator is a child of cancel culture and thus refuses to entertain debate on this matter, mindlessly censoring the solid exegetical grounds for the Catholic claim as "Catholic propaganda."
(3) In the NT the virgin birth of Jesus is attested neither in Paul or John, but only in Matthew and Luke. But Ignatius allows us to trace this doctrine back to first century Antioch, the mission base for Gentile Christianity.

 

Yeah, most of Protestantism and all of Catholicism hold that the Ignatian epistles are genuine.
It’s only when you get these obscure fundamentalists that can’t be objective in a scholarly way.
They would rather be damned before admitting anything Catholic is true, let alone the whole host Catholic doctrines this Apostolic Father supported.

Ignatius of Antioch is Moby Dick to these dudes and must be killed if it costs all the souls on their boat.

 

Here I think is the main problem as stated by 37818.

“I believe the New Testament are 1st century evidence of Christ. If I believed Ignatius had wrote what I regard as forgeries attributed to him, then based on the explicit teachings of the New Testament I would have to reject Ignatius as a hereitic.”

On believing Ignastius’ writings, Leader of the Church of Antioch, disciple of John, and martyr in the pagan arena, 37818 would consider him a heretic.

He pits his interpretation of scripture over a direct disciple of John the Apostle. Someone who lived in Apostolic times, not just read about it 2000 years later.

Honestly, if I disagreed with Ignatius back then, I would consider myself a heretic, and rethink my position.

 

I read it, but it seemed like a stream of invective.

 

The Truth is Eternal, it stands alone and peerless. It needs no guard to defend it. Censorship is the first sign of defence of a lie. A lie needs censorship a lie needs a great army to defend it.

“But they refused to love the truth; so God sends them something powerful that leads them away from the truth. He sends them that power so they will believe something that is la lie.”

The lie kills all who believe in it.

Many comfort themselves thinking their interpretations of scripture are true, but see not the false misinterpretation they have.

The voice of the ancient fathers have been long rejected by their rebellious forebears. Only a singular grace can reach them in the dark.

Trust not your own understanding, as if you understood to begin with, trust Truth. Love the Truth wherever it takes you. The Truth will set you free.

 

Ignatius was one of the earliest leaders of the early church and he wrote the letters in Greek and it was said that 7 epistles survived but later on 8 more letters showed up, and people argue that the later ones are the forgery.
In order to discern the veracity of the documents, we need to compare them in Greek original but the site brought on OP shows only English material.
As the people often compare the original with the English translation by Lightfoot, I want to point out the errors by Lightfoot.
Lightfoot was a bishop and scholar of the Anglican Church and I am not sure whether he was a born-again believer in the Lord and I have found some errors in his translation:

( Letter to Magnesian from Ignatius)

Εί ούν οί έν παλαιοîς πράγμασιν άναστραφέντες είς καινότητα έλπίδος ήλθον,

μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, άλλά κατά κυριακήν ζώντες, έν ή καί ή ζωή ήμών

άνέτειλεν δι’ αύτού καί τού θανάτου αύτού, <öν> τινες άρνούνται,

δι’ ού μυστηρίου έλάβομεν τò πιστεύειν, καί διά τούτο ύπομένομεν,

ïνα εύρεθώμεν μαθηταί 'Iησού Χριστού τού μόνου διδασκάλου ήμών· [14]

Here is a fairly typical 19th Century translation of verse 9.1, by Dr. J.B. Lightfoot:

( Translation by Lightfoot)

If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope,

no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day,

on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some

men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure

patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher [15].


( Translation by Eliyahu)

Therefore if those who had walked in the old practices came into the new

hope, they should no longer rest in the idleness, but should live according

to the Lord’s (life), in which even our life arose thru him and his death -

which some deny- thru that mysterious we received the faith, and thru

it we endure, so that we may be discovered Disciples of

Jesus Christ who is our only teacher.

The Difference is that Lightfoot translated the Sabbatizow as taking Sabbath but the meaning in the context is to rest in the idleness. There was no reason for Ignatius to refer to the issue of keeping the Law to the gentile believers who never kept the Torah before as they were the gentiles.

Catholics and their step-daughter churches believe that the Torah was abolished and Ignatius was already teaching the abolition of the Torah, which was untrue.
They even manipulated the Bible itself and sometimes they removed the words in the Bible. For example, in Acts 18:21 the following words are omitted in most of the modern translations, but KJV keeps it.
I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem
Catholic had to remove the feasts of the Bible all of which represent Lord Jesus Christ so that the pagan festivals like Christmas and Easter ( Easter was the name of the goddess in Babylon) may come into the Christianity.

For such purpose the letters to Magnesians by Ignatius were utilized by Catholics as the proofs of the abolition of the Law.
With a view to such facts, we have to review and discern the Letters by Ignatius.
Satan works hard and he is more diligent than the most of the Christians are.

Eliyahu

 

I think the 7 epistles by Ignatius are considered to be authentic while the other 8 epistles may be considered to be forgery.
Wiki says the same:

Ignatius of Antioch - Wikipedia

What is important with Ignatius is that he was the earliest church fathers after the Apostles of the Bible era, ca. 40 years earlier than Polycarp.
Both refer to the New Testaments Books in their letters.
Ignatius referred to or alluded the quotations of the NT epistles for 21 books
Polycarp referred to or alluded 20 books of NT books.
So, both testified the existence of the NT Bible for 23 among 27 Books.

https://etimasthe.com/2018/11/22/ignatius-of-antiochs-new-testament/
How Polycarp gives us evidence for the early use of the New Testament | Is Jesus Alive?

Omission of 2 Peter, 2 John, are understandable, and the Revelation was written late. In other words, by the time of Apostle John's death and the following years of Ignatius and Polycarp, the New Testament Canon was already established, which is quite different from the claims by RCC as they exalt Athanasius and believe Athanasius set the canon around 367AD, though Athanasius may have contributed quite a lot in fighting Arianism.
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Athanasius

I don't think NT church spent almost 300 years without knowing what are the true NT Bible, but 12 apostles set the Canon of the NT virtually by the time of the death of Apostle John.
The Disciples and the Early Church people were not lazy as we imagine about them today.
In that sense, the letters of Ignatius are important and meaningful about the NT Canon.

Eliyahu

 

Before there was a Canon, there was the Liturgy of the Mass. This is where the Church Councils used Tradition to determine the Canon.

The Bible was an outgrowth of the ecclesial Liturgy at mass in continuous use back to the Apostles.

There were over 50 documents pro porting to be Gospels and thousands claiming to be epistles. The Catholic Church simply used the continuous Liturgy rule at her Councils, so the Bible is a product of Catholic Tradition.

 

Well you kind of have to. I’m expecting you to go further and claim he didn’t even exist at all. You can’t allow a disciple of John, Bishop of Antioch and martyr in the arena profess Catholic Doctrine.

No you must do as Pharaoh did to Moses.

‘Let the name Ignatius be spoken of no more’

‘ Let his name be stricken from every building and monument ‘

‘ Let him be banished from our memory ‘

 

And you alone are the arbiter of Scriptures interpretation?

There’s no way a disciple of John, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr in the arena could know Scripture better than you?

You should be Pope, with greater credibility than an Apostolic Father who knew the Apostle John.