Talk:Ignatius of Antioch

message: I've now twice removed the anonymous addition of the Catholic martyrs category.  The reason is that it's somewhat anachronistic to claim a 2nd century bishop of Antioch as a "Catholic martyr."  Such a distinction as "Catholic" hadn't really taken by that point, and the almost necessary association that would be made by inclusion in such a category would be to the modern day Roman Catholic Church (especially since the category is a sub-category of :Category:Roman Catholics), which Ignatius certainly would not have had a sense of himself belonging to, certainly not as something which is so clearly out of communion with the church he was bishop of.  
If any such distinction is to be made, he would be an "Orthodox martyr" rather than "Catholic," especially since he tends to be much more highly regarded by Orthodox Christians than by Roman Catholic ones.  A whole patriarchate of the Orthodox Church regards him as their patron.  But of course when St. Ignatius was martyred, the two churches were still one.  To claim him for either "side" is implicitly to deny that.
In any event, "Christian martyrs" is good enough, it seems to me.  To claim Ignatius as a "Catholic," especially as some subset of "Roman Catholic," is to do injustice to the historical reality.  —Preost talk contribs 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But he is *honored* by the Catholic Church, whether he should be specifically seen as Roman Catholic or not... so maybe he fits into both Catholic, Orthodox, and Christian martyr? 75.68.77.207 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it should be put back.  Ignatius of Antioch is on the Roman Catholic calendar as a martyr and saint.  They do a Eucharist on his feast day, and the priest comes out wearing red.  Are we going to remove everyone who lived before 1054?  I think they should be included on both, along with a number of others. Carlo (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Ignatius of Antioch is considered a saint of the whole Christian church -- the so-called 'small-c catholic' -- in fact, there are almost no disputes involving his rank among any of the churches, ancient or current. (That is the only 'catholic' that existed in his time.) 'Capital-C Catholic', ie., the Roman church, is properly applied only to those who came during or after the Catholic/Orthodox split, many hundreds of years after Ignatius. Rlongman1 15 March 2011
-----------------------
I just removed a rather long passage that appeared to be an apologia written by a Seventh-Day Adventist - a long, convoluted attempt to "prove" that Ignatius was not actually advocating Sunday worship, when he obviously was. Carlo 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Catholic martyrs]] 

message: "He died as a martyr in the arena."  Despite exhaustive searching, admittedly with limited resources, I am unable to find any evidence that he died at Rome.
NBeddoe 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not accurate.  In the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter II, he refers to himself as the Bishop of Syria. Carlo (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The seven Ignatian letters are not necessarily by one author - critical analysis by Bernard Muller. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And who is Bernard Muller? Carlo (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs work I think. 

message: In regards to the quote in the article following the line "St. Ignatius is claimed to be the first known Christian writer to argue in favor of Christianity's replacement of the Sabbath with the Lord's Day:" I believe I should mention that some scholars have considered that rather than "Lord's Day" another possible translation would be "Lord's life", which is important as that changes a key part of the passage. I'm uncertain as to how to work this into the article, however. Lord Seth (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpretation of this quote is, I'm sure, the subject of academic debate. But it looks like the point here in the article is that he is _claimed_ to argue for the replacement of the Sabbath with the Lord's Day. IMO discussion of alternative translations here is inappropriate. 131.183.93.184 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord's Day 

message: People have said it is wrong for catholics to say he was catholic. I believe that any church today that was part of the church then should be able to claim him as back then there was only one church and it has branched. So the Catholics and the orthodox, in other words any denomination that is from the original church should be able to claim him.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As one skeptical writer drily noted, the Ignatian Epistles "abound with exhortations to obey the bishops. No wonder then that they are defended by episcopalians and disputed by presbyterians." Muzilon (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be accurate, everyone who trusts the real Lord Jesus as Savior is part of the catholic church, the Body of Christ.  And this Body of Christ is no denomination, though persons in denominations may be in the Body of Christ (if they are not just playing at church).  It is wrong to say there WAS 1 Church & it has branched into multiple Churches. Such a claim confuses denominations with Church. The NT never uses ekklesia for any denomination.  Now you may speak of what the papal organization claims -- but his denomination is not "The Church."  As to "saint," biblically all Christians are saints (else people are ain'ts).  There is no special group of super holy men in the NT called "saints."  As to Iggy, IMHO, he was a paranoid megalomaniac, a Diotrephes (3 John).  The title of this section assumes an error when it says, "what church can claims him" -- there is only 1 church & never will be another, so far as revealed in the Word.  (EnochBethany (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what church can claim him 

message: This article on Ignatius is particularly weak, for it does not explain what Ignatius was charged with,even if he was indeed charged,nor what crime he was accused of.  Wikipedia standards please! In short, why was he (Ignatius) sent to the colosseum in the first place? Perhaps our Spanish speaking friends could furnish an answer...
 – — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificateus (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Letters of Ignatius do not provide this information. It is, in fact, a source of great debate in the scholarly community. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be stated explicitly in the article I think. An obvious question is what was the alleged reason for his execution and if that is unknown the article should state that.--Davefoc (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fate of Ignatius 

message: Ignatius seems to have been a native speaker of Syriac. Is there any direct information about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what source? If you are basing your opinion on the Curetonian Syriac (aka the short recension), the scholarly opinion is virtually unanimous that the Syriac is an epitome. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriac 

message: The source given for the martyrdom story is , which states "There is a legend that the emperor Trajan himself, who wintered in Antioch in the year 115, examined the aged Bishop Ignatius in the year 115...According to the legend, Trajan ruled that Ignatius should die. He was bound and conveyed to Rome, to be devoured by wild beasts in the Colosseum...According to tradition, (Ignatius) reached Rome on December 20, the last day of the games, and was brought at once before the prefect, to whom the Emperor's letter was delivered. At the prefect's command, the prisoner was hurried off to the Colosseum, where, we are told, two fierce lions were let out and Ignatius was at once killed..." and refers to these "legendary and fictitious elements". Yes, he wrote letters on the way to Rome but there is nothing beyond legend, tradition and fiction to say that Ignatius was killed by wild beasts in the Colosseum. WP should not report legends as historical facts.Smeat75 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source for the martyrdom story states that it is a legend, so I have altered the article accordingly 

message: I could not find anything that directly mentions a denial of immortality of the soul (the term annihilation or a similar term may have very well been used), so I think this tag is inappropriate.  2601:0:4180:7D1:985E:84A7:8ED1:B381 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Annihilationism

message: The section on his life is a travesty of terrible scholarship. It presents Catholic beliefs as true, without reference to any historical or critical scholarship, and without acknowledging these are Catholic beliefs.  It vastly over-claims even that evidence.  The whole section needs to be carefully reworked, hopefully by someone with some expertise and access to the scholarly literature, to make clear consensus scholarly opinion and degree of certainty for probably every statement.  Some specific issues follow:
*Using the word "records" for the claims of Eusebius and Theodorett, as if they were trustworthy sources on the matter.  Considering critical scholarship is doubtful of the connection to Peter, the gullibility in unquestioningly accepting the latter is astounding.  
*Acknowledging the tradition of his being held by Jesus without mentioning that scholars doubt the veracity of this, even according to other citations used on the page!
*"It is believed that St. Ignatius, along with his friend Polycarp, with great probability were disciples of the Apostle St. John." Believed by who? Great probability based on what?  Which John?  (Catholic tradition may consider the Gospel character and the writers of the eponymous Gospel, Revelation, and the eponymous epistles as all the same person, but the critical scholarship disagrees vehemently, and even historical church scholars like Eusebius don't think they're all the same.)
*Why, in the life section, doesn't it contrast Eusebius account with the scholarly range which appears in the lead, or make any comment relating the two whatsoever?  (And why doesn't the sidebar represent the scholarly range?)
*The last paragraph on his life about Christian traditions regarding his remains is in desperate need of citations, but at least it identifies this as not necessarily fact by attributing it specifically to tradition.
Seriously, the life section is so deficient relative to other readily available sources, even on the internet (see http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/, which is vastly more reliable), that its not even worth reading past the life section - I can only imagine the evident poor scholarship infuses the whole article. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:F145:1DBC:D2FC:F6BD (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words, gullible use of sources, oh my

message: The text says, "Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117[1]), also known . . . ."  I regret that those numbers don't express anything clear.  Could someone please clarify them?  Do they mean, "Iggy was born either around AD 35 or precisely on AD 50, and he died somewhere in the range of years 98-117"?  Do they mean, "Iggy was born around AD 35 or in the range of time AD 50-98, with the possibility that he was not born until AD 117"?  (EnochBethany (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Fix Obtuse Date