From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities: (p 151-152)
Now if ( and it is a BIG IF ) Ignatius was genuine and writing at the beginning of the first century this would bring the discussion of whether or not Jesus was man or god to well before Tertullian. Of course, if Ignatius is just another fictional character...much like jesus himself...invented to deal with these issues by later writers it means very little. But xtians, such as presumably Alter is, are stuck with the whole shooting match of bullshit put out by the church...so here you go.
Quote:referring to “our God Jesus Christ, [who] is in the Father” (Ign. Rom. 8:3), or as “God come in the flesh” (Ign. Eph. 7:2), or of “the blood of God,” by which he means the blood of Christ (Ign. Eph. 1:1). But he was equally and passionately committed to Christ being human, as is evident in two of his letters, one sent to the Christians of Tralles and the other to those of Smyrna. He knew that in both cities there was opposition to the proto-orthodox view that Jesus was somehow both divine and human; the opponents were docetists, who maintained that Jesus was divine and not at all human.
And so in his letter to the Trallians, Ignatius warns against those who claim that Jesus “only appeared to suffer” (10:1) and insists, in response, that Jesus “was truly born, both ate and drank; was truly persecuted at the time of Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . and was also truly raised from the dead” (9:1–2). So, too, in the letter to the Smyrneans, Ignatius attacks those who claimed that Jesus’ passion was a sham, that he was not an actual flesh-and-blood human being who really suffered (2:1). Ignatius again denies that such persons are “believers” (2:1) and warns his readers not even to meet and talk with them (4:1). In opposition to their views, he insists that Jesus was “actually born” (1:1) and was “actually crucified . . . in the flesh” (1:2), and he “genuinely suffered” and “genuinely raised himself” (2:1). Even after his resurrection he was “in the flesh” (3:1), as evidenced by the fact that his disciples touched him and observed him eating and drinking (3:2–3).
Now if ( and it is a BIG IF ) Ignatius was genuine and writing at the beginning of the first century this would bring the discussion of whether or not Jesus was man or god to well before Tertullian. Of course, if Ignatius is just another fictional character...much like jesus himself...invented to deal with these issues by later writers it means very little. But xtians, such as presumably Alter is, are stuck with the whole shooting match of bullshit put out by the church...so here you go.
