The Apostolic Fathers TAUGHT The Trinity (1st Century)

[@ZechariahMoore-t3b]

"WAKE UP BABE, AGEN DROPPED A NEW VIDEO!!"🔥✝🙏

[@LMN579]

God bless you. Please continue this with 2nd century and 3rd century.

[@CopticZaza]

Great video agen ❤

[@AfeworkAgenechew]

❤

[@Jaiwiqik]

40 minutes of absolute peak

[@ruel762]

Bro hasn't even finished it 😭

[@Biniam_Hailu]

God bless you Agen 🫶

[@ruel762]

2 videos in 4 days 💥💣🔥

[@copticorthodoxtheology]

Very nice Agen.

[@halfwaydead3087]

Great video G., though I may be a dirty Dyophysite I still appreciate your work on defending the most holy trinity

[@internautaoriginal9951]

You a cuck bro, heck nah 😂

[@AfeworkAgenechew]

God bless you brother in Christ .

[@fadymaged5257]

Great work as always!!! Can you do a video about penal substitution?

[@reaganpilt6134]

What mic are you using? I am wanting to start a channel refuting Muslim claims that early Christians were anti-trinitarians and your mic sounds good

[@Meatyyyy]

So based

[@danielcutlac5987]

A good video to add to this would be a biblical basis of the Trinity and that which was discussed in this video, it would pair up nicely for non trinitarians to witness a biblical basis and early church history basis too. God bless you.

[@Isakhh27]

Can you make a video that proves that the early Church Fathers taught Miaphysitism?

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

Already in the works!

[@kennynoNope]

I would love to see a video of a refutation of the Catholic doctrine that Muslims and Christian’s worship the same god. The Roman Catholic Church even calls Allah to the Quran the creator of the heaven and earth.

[@778FraxK]

What's there to refute? Muslims don't worship the Trinity, it's a very clear false statement by the RC

[@AfeworkAgenechew]

My brother How to interprent book of sirach about wisdom 1:4 and 24:9 to Eternal Generation or incarnation ? b/c Deity of christ undoubtedly affirm by in book of new testament and church fathers unanimously.

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

In Sirach 1:5 we are told Wisdom is caused by the "Word of God on High" and in verses 8-9 we are told "The One king made wisdom by the Holy Spirit". If it is true wisdom is the first creation, and it is caused by the one king, Word, and Holy Spirit, then the causers of the first creature must be uncreated St. Athanasius explains that this created wisdom is the outpouring of wisdom towards the creature after the image of the Son when God began to create (sirach 1:8-10)

[@AfeworkAgenechew]

Thank you

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Holding to a high Christology is NOT the same as teaching the Trinity. The first Christian theologian to explicitly call the Holy Spirit God was Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), in his fifth "Theological Oration" _On the Holy Spirit_ (c.380), written and delivered in Constantinople, probably during the second half of 380. At paragraph 27, Gregory openly admitted the early Church did not have a Trinitarian doctrine or teach the (separate) divinity of the Holy Spirit and would have rejected both. The revelation of the Holy Spirit's full deity (as opposed to being a lesser divinity), according to Gregory, is one of those truths Jesus told the Apostles they were not ready to hear but would be revealed later (John 16:12-13). Gregory was also critical of his contemporaries, Basil of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa, for their unwillingness to affirm the Holy Spirit's full deity. Think about that for a moment. It took around 350 years before anyone was prepared to call the Holy Spirit God in the same sense as the Father and Son. According to Gregory, the doctrine of the Trinity (as it came to be known after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 some 70 years later) wasn't taught in the New Testament or in the early church. According to Boyarin, “There is significant evidence … that in the first century many - perhaps most - Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God”. (Boyarin 2006, _Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity._ p131). Some examples of early church Binitarianism: • The writer of the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160), at 59:5: _The holy pre-existent spirit, which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired._ Similarly, at 78:1: _I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God._ • Psuedo-Clement (c.130-160), at _2 Clement_ 14:4, wrote: _But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wantonly with the Church. Such an one therefore shall not partake of the spirit, which is Christ._ • In his _Dialogue with Trypho, 61.1,_ Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) equated the logos, Son and Holy Spirit, saying: _God has begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures a kind of Reasonable Power from Himself, which is also called by the Holy Spirit the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes Lord and Word. Sometimes also He speaks of Himself as Chief Commander, when He appeared in the form of a man to Joshua the son of Nun. For He can have all these names._ What is pretty obvious from these texts is that, for early Christians, Jesus was the Holy Spirit incarnated.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

I think his Saint Justin Martyr (110-165) First Apology Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson Chapter 33 And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, ’God with us.’” For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction. But lest some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive,” signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, “Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins,”-as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Σωτηρ (Saviour) in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant. This is better than

[@Snoopy0310]

There's recent 2 videos of famous guys denied trinity by using church fathers &, the new testament

[@internautaoriginal9951]

Im not famous but is not hard to refute the trinity with the Apostolic Fathers. Oneness Monarchianism is the truth.

[@Biniam_Hailu]

​@internautaoriginal9951 You have eyes but cannot see the truth because the God of this world has blinded you.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@Biniam_HailuI have seen it. Christ is the Fathers eternal word.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

1. Forgery of the Longer Recension Scholars widely agree that the longer recension of Ignatius’ letters was a later forgery. The longer versions were heavily interpolated by unknown authors who added theological and polemical material to align with later doctrinal debates, particularly those related to Nicene Trinitarianism. Evidence of Forgery: Language and Style: The longer recension includes verbose and flowery expansions that differ significantly from Ignatius’ concise and forceful style. Theological Anachronisms: It introduces concepts and language tied to later Trinitarian debates (e.g., the Nicene distinctions between persons), which were not present in the 2nd century when Ignatius lived. Historical Context: The shorter recension, preserved by the Syriac manuscripts, is considered closer to the original text and reflects the simplicity of early Christian theology, without later doctrinal elaborations. Motivations: The longer recension seems to have been crafted to counter Arianism and other heresies by inserting language that reinforced the Nicene framework. Thus, relying on the longer recension undermines historical credibility because it reflects post-Ignatian developments and cannot be trusted as authentic to Ignatius himself. 2. Christ as Unbegotten The phrase from the shorter recension of Ignatius in Ephesians 7:2: "There is one physician, of flesh and of spirit, born and unborn (γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος), God in man..." This passage directly challenges the notion of eternal begetting by stating that Christ is both γεννητὸς (born) and ἀγέννητος (unborn or unbegotten). Born (γεννητὸς): Refers to Christ’s incarnation, His human nature being born of Mary. Unbegotten (ἀγέννητος): Refers to Christ’s divine nature, which is uncreated, eternal, and fully God. This clearly separates Christ's temporal birth in the flesh from His eternal divine nature, refuting the Trinitarian idea that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. Instead, it aligns with Oneness theology, which sees Christ’s divinity as the uncreated Spirit of God and His humanity as the means through which God was manifested in time. 3. Christ as the Spirit In Magnesians 15, Ignatius refers to the believers as having: "The inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ." Here, Ignatius equates Jesus Christ with the Spirit, supporting the idea that there is no distinction in essence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This aligns with Oneness theology, which holds that Christ is the manifestation of the one Spirit of God (the Father) in flesh. This contradicts Trinitarianism, which posits distinct persons within the Godhead, because Ignatius does not describe Jesus and the Spirit as separate "persons." Instead, they are inseparably one, consistent with the absolute unity of God in Oneness theology. 4. Christ as the Mind of the Father In Ephesians 3:2, Ignatius writes: "...run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father." This phrase reinforces the idea that Jesus Christ is not a separate person from the Father but is the manifestation of God’s own mind (νοῦς). This aligns with Oneness theology, where Christ is the self-revelation of the Father, expressing His will, purpose, and nature. In contrast, Trinitarian theology would interpret this passage as Christ being in unity with the Father but still a distinct person, which is an artificial division not supported by the text. Ignatius emphasizes inseparability, which is foundational to the Oneness view of God's absolute unity Waiting for your response!

[@davidgeorge6410]

Firstly, I don’t see where Agen utilises the Longer Recension of the Ignatian Corpus in his video. Rather, he quotes from the Middle Recension, which is accepted by the widespread scholarly consensus as the original text - not the Short Recension (Barnes 2008; Gilliam III 2017). Secondly, you yourself have answered the question in a manner: γεννητός is with reference to his temporal birth, and ἀγέννητος to his eternal existence and uncreatedness (hence, “ungenerate”). It is quite foolish to impose in here something anti-Trinitarian, contrary to the pre-Nicene context. Thirdly, the Gr. term is αδιαϰριτον, which simply means “undivided” (cf. Holmes 2007), and not “inseparable”. Christ is ‘spirit’ by nature, and he is indivisible and undivided: no one disagrees. Fourthly, St. Ignatius explicitly contradicts and denies Modalism at several places. As he writes in Magn. 6:1, Jesus Christ “before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of time”: the same person cannot be “with” himself. Similarly, he goes on to say that the Lord “was united with” the Father even at the point of Incarnation. He distinguishes the Father and the Son as two, yet as being naturally united with him as he is with us (Smyr. 12).

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@davidgeorge6410 1. "Yévontos" and "Agenetos" - Temporal Birth vs. Eternal Existence You argue that γεννητὸς (yévontos) refers to Christ’s temporal birth and ἀγέννητος (agenetos) refers to His eternal unbegottenness, dismissing the anti-Trinitarian interpretation as “foolish.” Refutation: Let’s be clear: theological convenience doesn’t change historical facts. Ignatius uses ἀγέννητος to describe Christ’s eternal nature as uncreated, which directly contradicts the later Nicene doctrine of the eternal begetting of the Son. This isn’t “foolish,” it’s historical reality. The phrase “born and unbegotten” makes a sharp distinction between Christ’s humanity (γεννητὸς) and His divinity (ἀγέννητος). To claim that this is purely a reflection of His temporal birth and eternal unbegottenness as separate ideas within the Trinitarian framework is to ignore the historical and theological context of the early Church. The phrase ἀγέννητος (unbegotten) doesn’t merely imply a lack of creation; it suggests an eternal, uncreated existence that stands opposed to the later Nicene view of the Son being eternally begotten. This is absolutely anti-Trinitarian if you understand that in Ignatius’ time, the Nicene distinctions had not yet been formed, and terms like "eternally begotten" were not part of the early Christian lexicon. You can’t retroactively impose post-Nicene theology on Ignatius' work. Ignatius is not using this phrase to reflect Nicene Trinitarianism; he is emphasizing Christ's divinity as uncreated and eternal, which aligns perfectly with Oneness theology and contradicts Trinitarian ideas of eternal generation. 2. “Alapitov” - “Undivided” vs. “Inseparable” You argue that the term "ἀλάβητος" means "undivided", not “inseparable”, and thus no one disagrees that Christ is "spirit" by nature and "undivided." First, “ἀλάβητος” isn’t the term you’re looking for, so this is a basic misstep. The term in is “ἀχώριστος”, which clearly means inseparable, and it directly challenges your argument. “Inseparable” speaks to the unity of the Father and Son, not a mere lack of division. Christ is not merely “undivided” in nature; He is inseparably one with the Father. To reduce this to “undivided” is to ignore the core theological implication that the Father and Son share the same essence-not just a lack of separation, but a complete oneness. Moreover, this underscores a fundamental flaw in your interpretation. Ignatius is saying that the Father and Son are not two separate entities-they are inseparable, one in essence and purpose. This is exactly what Oneness theology teaches. To try to impose a Trinitarian reading where you separate the Father and Son into distinct persons simply doesn’t fit the language Ignatius is using. 3. Ignatius "Denies Modalism" - Misinterpretation of the Evidence You assert that Ignatius denies Modalism, citing his statement in Magn. 6:1, where Christ "before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of time." This is a gross misinterpretation of Ignatius' theology. Ignatius is not saying that the Father and Son are distinct persons. He’s describing Christ as the eternal Word, who was with the Father before time, and then appeared in the flesh at the end of time. This doesn’t support Trinitarianism, but rather points to the revelation of God in Christ-which is Oneness theology in its purest form. The phrase “Christ appeared at the end of time” doesn’t suggest two persons; it suggests that Christ’s manifestation in time was the full revelation of the one God. Ignatius is emphasizing that the Father and Son are inseparable-one is not distinct from the other, but the same God revealed in different modes. You’re making a fundamental error when you cite this as a refutation of Modalism. Ignatius is not distinguishing between two persons of the Godhead-he is describing one God manifesting in two ways: as Father before time, and as Son in the fullness of time. This is exactly what Modalism teaches, and it contradicts Trinitarian theology. 4. The Same Person Cannot Be "With" Himself? You claim that the same person cannot be “with” himself, and thus Ignatius cannot be teaching Modalism. This is a shallow argument that misses the entire point of Ignatius' theology. The idea that Christ is “with the Father” before time does not undermine Oneness theology. In fact, it supports it. Ignatius speaks of Christ as being the eternal Word and the manifestation of God in time. The language of being “with the Father” is perfectly consistent with the Oneness belief that God is indivisible, yet manifests in different forms at different points in history. Your insistence that the Father and Son must be two distinct persons here is simply a Trinitarian imposition on an Oneness context. Ignatius' statements about Christ being "with the Father" are perfectly understandable within the Oneness view of God’s self-manifestation. The Father is eternally present in Christ, and Christ, being the manifestation of the Father in the flesh, is inseparable from Him. There’s no contradiction here, but rather a clear affirmation of God’s unity. You’re trying to impose a post-Nicene Trinitarian lens onto an early Church Father who clearly believed in the absolute unity of God. Ignatius’ statements about the Father and Son being inseparable contradict your insistence on two distinct persons in a way that fits perfectly with Oneness theology. 5. Christ as the Spirit Let’s not forget the explicit statements from Ignatius about Christ being spirit: Magnesians 15: Ignatius writes that the believers have “the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.” This is clearly modalistic-Christ is the Spirit, the same God in different manifestations. Ignatius refers to Christ as the "Spirit", showing that he understood **Jesus as the manifestation of the one divine Spirit of God. In Ephesians 3:2, Ignatius says Christ is “the mind of the Father,” emphasizing His oneness with God. These passages are undeniable proof that Ignatius did not believe in the separation of persons within the Godhead. To try to argue that Ignatius didn’t teach Modalism is to completely ignore his clear statements about Christ as the Spirit and the inseparability of the Father and Son This is consistent with the work of John Henry Newman “Again, Athenagoras, St. Clement, Tertullian, and the two SS. Dionysii would appear to be the only writers whose language is at any time exact and systematic enough to remind us of the Athanasian Creed. If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian. Again, there are three great theological authors of the Ante-nicene centuries, Tertullian, Origen, and, we may add, Eusebius, though he lived some way into the fourth. Tertullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's divinity [Note 10], and, indeed, ultimately fell altogether into heresy or schism; Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.”

[@davidgeorge6410]

@@internautaoriginal9951 Wonderful, you are off on every point. Right, ἀγέννητος refers to the eternal, uncreated existence. Trinitarianism doesn't teach that the Son is eternally created, or that he isn't eternal: rather, his begetting is before time, and eternal. His eternal nature is uncreated, and in that sense, unbegotten and ingenerate. As St. Ignatius writes: the Son was "with" the Father before time, proceeding from him before the ages. Secondly, here is the Greek for Magn. 15 from the Middle Recension which is accepted by the scholarly consensus as the authentic text, in case you are confused: ερρωσθε έν όμονοίά θεου κεκτημένοι άδιάκριτον πνευμα, σς έστιν Ίησους Χριστός (Holmes 2007, p. 212). The truth is simple as evident: the term άδιάκριτον is what's used, not ἀλάβητος. You seem to be illiterate in Greek, as well. ἀλάβητος literally means, in Greek, a "fish" that's native to Nile. Maybe it's time to stop using AI for information concerning St. Ignatius and his Greek text. Thirdly, your point still isn't making any sense. For the eternal Word to be "with" the Father, he has to be a distinct person / figure. Think about this: we don't ever say, that God's foreknowledge, or his uncreatedness, or his eternity (which are all divine attributes), are "with" him eternally. Now, read St. Ignatius again. The Word is "with" the Father eternally, before even the beginning of time. Smyr. 12 doesn't even mention "the Spirit". Try to read the texts that you're trying to misquote.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@davidgeorge6410 The whole idea that the Son is eternally begotten just doesn’t make any sense Ignatius of Antioch is crystal clear that Jesus is both born of Mary (in His humanity) and unborn (eternal, uncreated in His divinity). The word ἀγέννητος (unbegotten) outright rejects any notion that the Son has a beginning or origin. Let’s cut through the nonsense here: "eternally begotten" is a contradiction. Begotten means to have an origin-a starting point. But if the Son is eternal, that makes no sense. He’s with the Father before time even existed, co-eternal, uncreated. John 1:1 and John 17:5 leave no room for argument. If the Son were begotten, that means He’d be created, which would make Him less than God. And that’s just wrong. The whole "eternal generation" thing is theological nonsense that messes with the nature of Christ. The Father and Son are distinct persons, but they’re both fully God, sharing the same eternal, uncreated essence. To say the Son is "eternally begotten" just makes Him sound like some kind of lesser god, which is heretical. If Trinitarians want to hold onto the idea of an eternal, begotten Son, they’ve got to explain how that even works. Spoiler: it doesn’t. The truth is simple-the Son is unbegotten and eternally with the Father. Anything else is just a man-made distortion of who Christ really is, trinitarians are bound to believe Christ in his human nature is generated, that’s Ignatius whole theological ground specially because he says Christis the Fathers mind, you ignored this cowardly which is normal since you can’t respond.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@davidgeorge6410 The greek text you quoted from The Epistle to the Magnesians doesn’t contradict what I said about Christ being the Inseparable spirit, in fact it makes it clear. “Verses: [1] 15:1 Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς Ἐφέσιοι ἀπὸ Σμύρνης, ὅθεν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν, παρόντες εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμεῖς οἳ κατὰ πάντα με ἀνέπαυσαν ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ, ἐπισκόπῳ Σμυρναίων. καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ δὲ ἐκκλησίαι ἐν τιμῇ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς. ἔρρωσθε ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ θεοῦ, κεκτημένοι ἀδιάκριτον πνεῦμα, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The Ephesians greet you from Smyrna, from where I am writing to you. They, like you, are present with me for the glory of God refreshed me regarding all things together with Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnaeans. And the rest of the churches greet you in honour of Jesus Christ. Farewell in the harmony of God, to you who possess an impartial spirit, which is Jesus Christ” This is consistent with what I said, Christ is the Spirit, I probably translated from the source you quoted. And what Paul said 1 Corinthians 12:13 “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink Ephesians 4:3-6 “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

[@Miaphysite_Carsin]

W

[@Casha54]

Gg

[@AustinHayes-w7i]

In all the earliest pre-nicean trinities jesus alone is depicted as the very bottom in a deservedly subordinate, inferior role. Not the third of three. The modern depictions and unforgivably blasphemous to the holy one and the ‘father-son relation’ implies not one of analogous servitude (as it should) but of partnerdom/polytheism.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

Ignatius believed Jesus was the Fathers mind and Spirit and he wasn’t begotten from the Father. The word used in his letter is “mono genes”

[@ApostolicOrthodoxy]

In the Longer Recension of St. Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians we read: "They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. ..who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the Virgin." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Trallians, 6, 9

[@IM.o.s.e.s.I]

​@@ApostolicOrthodoxy “To the following introductory note of the translators nothing need be prefixed, except a grateful acknowledgment of the value of their labours and of their good judgment in giving us even these spurious writings for purposes of comparison. They have thus placed the materials for a complete understanding of the whole subject, before students who have a mind to subject it to a thorough and candid examination. The following is the original Introductory Notice: -- We formerly stated that eight out of the fifteen Epistles bearing the name of Ignatius are now universally admitted to be spurious. None of them are quoted or referred to by any ancient writer previous to the sixth century. The style, moreover, in which they are written, so different from that of the other Ignatian letters, and allusions which they contain to heresies and ecclesiastical arrangements of a much later date than that of their professed author, render it perfectly certain that they are not the authentic production of the illustrious bishop of Antioch. We cannot tell when or by whom these Epistles were fabricated. They have been thought to betray the same hand as the longer and interpolated form of the seven Epistles which are generally regarded as genuine. And some have conceived that the writer who gave forth to the world the Apostolic Constitutions under the name of Clement, was probably the author of these letters falsely ascribed to Ignatius, as well as of the longer recension of the seven Epistles which are mentioned by Eusebius. It was a considerable time before editors in modern times began to discriminate between the true and the false in the writings attributed to Ignatius. The letters first published under his name were those three which exist only in Latin. These came forth in 1495 at Paris, being appended to a life of Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. Some three years later, eleven Epistles, comprising those mentioned by Eusebius, and four others, were published in Latin, and passed through four or five editions. In 1536, the whole of the professedly Ignatian letters were published at Cologne in a Latin version; and this collection also passed through several editions. It was not till 1557 that the Ignatian Epistles appeared for the first time in Greek at Dillingen. After this date many editions came forth, in which the probably genuine were still mixed up with the certainly spurious, the three Latin letters, only being rejected as destitute of authority. Vedelius of Geneva first made the distinction which is now universally accepted, in an edition of these Epistles which he published in 1623; and he was followed by Archbishop Usher and others, who entered more fully into that critical examination of these writings which has been continued down even to our own day.”

[@IM.o.s.e.s.I]

​@@ApostolicOrthodoxy“(c) Ignatius knows that ‘God is one’ but affirms the point to mark the importance of God's self-revelation ‘through Jesus Christ his son’ (Mag. 8.2). Elsewhere Ignatius refers to Christ as ‘our God’ and evidently attributes divinity to him in the fullest sense (see on Eph. inscr). Thus from the point of view of later trinitarian developments Ignatius tends to a ‘monarchian’ position. ⁹⁸ There are a number of passages that have a ‘subordinationist’ ring, but appearances are probably deceiving in this regard (see on Eph. 3.2). In one passage Christ is conceived of as having existed with the Father before the ages (Mag. 6.1), but the pre-cosmic distinction between Father and Son is apparently not emphasized. Thus in another passage Ignatius builds (it seems) on adoptionist language and traces the emergence of Christ as God's ‘son’ to the time of the incarnation (see on Sm. 1.1; cf. Mag. 8.2).⁹⁹ But the use of technical language to describe Ignatius' theology runs the risk of falsifying the picture. Images such as that of the word from silence (Mag. 8.2) suggest more accurately his concern. ¹⁰⁰ What we have here is a mind dominated by a vision of the atemporal and invisible God manifesting himself in space and time (Pol. 3.2; cf. Eph. 7.2).” - Ignatius of Antioch, by William R. Schoedel, pg. 20

[@IM.o.s.e.s.I]

“In view of this language the conclusion has sometimes been drawn that, while echoing the triadic scheme made official by the baptismal formula, Ignatius was really an 'economic trinitarian', i.e. regarded God as an undifferentiated monad in His essential being, the Son and the Spirit being merely forms or modes of the Father's self-revelation, only distinguishable from Him in the process of revelation. A closer analysis, however, shows how misleading this interpretation is as an account of Ignatius's thought. This, it should be noted, was steeped in the Fourth Gospel, and its strong emphasis on the oneness of Christ with the Father reflects such Johannine texts as I, I; 10, 30; 14, 9; 17, 5. In tracing His divine Sonship to His conception in Mary's womb, he was simply reproducing a commonplace of pre-Origenist theology; the idea did not convey, and was not intended to convey, any denial of His pre-existence. So far as Ignatius is concerned, he definitely states that He 'existed with the Father before the ages', and that He 'came forth from the unique Father, was with Him and has returned to Him'. Phrases like these imply a real distinction, as do the passages in which he compares the relation of deacons to the bishop, or of the church to the bishop, to that of Christ to the Father. Numerous other contexts suggest that His independence vis-a-vis the Father was not limited to His earthly sojourn, such as (a) the formulae of greeting and farewell affixed to the letters, and (b) Ignatius's requests to his correspondents to address their prayers to Jesus Christ. But the only hint he gives of the nature of this distinction within the unity of the divine spirit is that Christ is the Father's 'thought'.” - Early Christian Doctrines, by J.N.D. Kelly

[@internautaoriginal9951]

1. Forgery of the Longer Recension Scholars widely agree that the longer recension of Ignatius’ letters was a later forgery. The longer versions were heavily interpolated by unknown authors who added theological and polemical material to align with later doctrinal debates, particularly those related to Nicene Trinitarianism. Evidence of Forgery: Language and Style: The longer recension includes verbose and flowery expansions that differ significantly from Ignatius’ concise and forceful style. Theological Anachronisms: It introduces concepts and language tied to later Trinitarian debates (e.g., the Nicene distinctions between persons), which were not present in the 2nd century when Ignatius lived. Historical Context: The shorter recension, preserved by the Syriac manuscripts, is considered closer to the original text and reflects the simplicity of early Christian theology, without later doctrinal elaborations. Motivations: The longer recension seems to have been crafted to counter Arianism and other heresies by inserting language that reinforced the Nicene framework. Thus, relying on the longer recension undermines historical credibility because it reflects post-Ignatian developments and cannot be trusted as authentic to Ignatius himself. 2. Christ as Unbegotten The phrase from the shorter recension of Ignatius in Ephesians 7:2: "There is one physician, of flesh and of spirit, born and unborn (γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος), God in man..." This passage directly challenges the notion of eternal begetting by stating that Christ is both γεννητὸς (born) and ἀγέννητος (unborn or unbegotten). Born (γεννητὸς): Refers to Christ’s incarnation, His human nature being born of Mary. Unbegotten (ἀγέννητος): Refers to Christ’s divine nature, which is uncreated, eternal, and fully God. This clearly separates Christ's temporal birth in the flesh from His eternal divine nature, refuting the Trinitarian idea that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father. Instead, it aligns with Oneness theology, which sees Christ’s divinity as the uncreated Spirit of God and His humanity as the means through which God was manifested in time. 3. Christ as the Spirit In Magnesians 15, Ignatius refers to the believers as having: "The inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ." Here, Ignatius equates Jesus Christ with the Spirit, supporting the idea that there is no distinction in essence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This aligns with Oneness theology, which holds that Christ is the manifestation of the one Spirit of God (the Father) in flesh. This contradicts Trinitarianism, which posits distinct persons within the Godhead, because Ignatius does not describe Jesus and the Spirit as separate "persons." Instead, they are inseparably one, consistent with the absolute unity of God in Oneness theology. 4. Christ as the Mind of the Father In Ephesians 3:2, Ignatius writes: "...run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father." This phrase reinforces the idea that Jesus Christ is not a separate person from the Father but is the manifestation of God’s own mind (νοῦς). This aligns with Oneness theology, where Christ is the self-revelation of the Father, expressing His will, purpose, and nature. In contrast, Trinitarian theology would interpret this passage as Christ being in unity with the Father but still a distinct person, which is an artificial division not supported by the text. Ignatius emphasizes inseparability, which is foundational to the Oneness view of God's absolute unity