Are Polytheists Christians?

[Jason]

The questions arises: "Is polytheism consistent with Christianity?" The reply by some is an unequivocal "yes". However, the early Christian Church quite clearly has declared that polytheism is inconsistent with Christianity.

St. Ignatius (b. 50AD - d. 117AD), who was the third Bishop of Antioch following St. Peter and Bishop Evodius, writes the following Epistle to the Magnesians:

Chapter XI.-I Write These Things to Warn You.

These things [i address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism, He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us ever be turned aside!

[Ray]

Interesting how Ignatius refers to the Father as the one and only true God, as Jesus had referred to the Father before, and as Paul referred to our Father, but we know that Jesus is God too, don’t we?

Also notice that he said that Jesus was begotten by the Father before all ages, and was afterward born of the Virgin Mary.

Once again, the key to eternal life is to know our Father, the only true God to us, and Jesus, who the Father has sent.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 03:09 PM

The questions arises: "Is polytheism consistent with Christianity?" The reply by some is an unequivocal "yes". However, the early Christian Church quite clearly has declared that polytheism is inconsistent with Christianity.

St. Ignatius (b. 50AD - d. 117AD),

You are acting as if St. Ignatius was the "early Christian Church."

He wasn't.

[Jason]

Hmm...so far no responses. All we have is one post that ignores the subject, and one that is more consistent with an ad hominem attack, than anything....

[Ray]

Heh, how blind can someone be? I didn’t ignore the subject, and I certainly gave a response. I told you something that should have told you something. Can’t you see that? Ignatius didn’t even refer to Jesus as God, and was referring to our Father as the one and only true God.

For some reason you cannot see the truth even when it is right in front of your face.

Here, look again, and then tell me how many fingers I am holding up.

Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.

He [Christ] made known the one and only true God, His Father

He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him...

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 03:56 PM

Hmm...so far no responses. All we have is one post that ignores the subject, and one that is more consistent with an ad hominem attack, than anything....

Pray, which one was I? The ignorerer or the ad hominener?

Either why, one of premises is probably wrong.

[Jason]

Ray,

If St Ignatius is preaching against polytheism, then that mean's he's advocating something else. That something else is monotheism. "Mono" is a Greek word that means "only". Only One God. Jesus' Father is the only God. Jesus is also God. Not another god, but God. They are a compound unity "ehad" that share the same essence, but are different persons.

There is no god the grandfather of god, no brothers of god called god, nor will you or any other mormon be god. Not a god, the god, or another god.

How can you not see that?!

[Jason]

Ah, my dear Snow. I didn't say it was an ad hominem, but that it was "more consistent" with such an argument.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@ Aug 3 2004, 04:41 PM

There is no god the grandfather of god, no brothers of god called god, nor will you or any other mormon be god. Not a god, the god, or another god.

How do you know that? If the Son and Father are different persons who are both God, then why can’t there be other persons who are God too?

Clearly you still do not see well.

[Jason]

Ray,

You may wrest the Scriptures unto your own condemnation....but I wish you wouldn't. That's ok, Catholics believe that Mormons will go to heaven....though some may spend more time in purgatory that others.

(Nothing but love for ya Ray, nothing but love....)

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 04:54 PM

Ray,

You may wrest the Scriptures unto your own condemnation....but I wish you wouldn't. That's ok, Catholics believe that Mormons will go to heaven....though some may spend more time in purgatory that others.

(Nothing but love for ya Ray, nothing but love....)

I love you too, Jason, and I pray that you will start seeing things the way they really are, soon.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 04:42 PM

Ah, my dear Snow. I didn't say it was an ad hominem, but that it was "more consistent" with such an argument.

Actually, it is not consistent with an ad hominen fallacy.

It is an observation that you have comitted the fallacy of converse accident or hasty generalization - beings how we are tossing about logical fallacies and all.

If one of your premises is faulty, it is likely that your conclusion will be faulty. Correcting the premise can do nothing but help your cause. However, it is worth pointing out that some scholars, be they many or few, think that the idea of the Trinity is in itself a form of polytheism so you've got that to deal with too.

Note: an example of an ad hominen fallacy would be if I said that your conclusion was wrong because you are a surly, crook-pated boar pig, my dear Jason. :)

[Jason]

Snow,

So when you said that I was acting as if St Ignatius was the whole early church, and that he wasn't, what were you implying?

If not an attack on him personally, are you saying that his teachings were not to be trusted? Or that, though regarded as one of the most important of the Apostolic Fathers (he and St Polycarp used to hang with John the Apostle) he may have been in error with regards to polytheism?

[Snow]

Your conclusion is that the early Christian Church thought that polytheism was whack.

Your stated premise upon which you reach such conclusion was the the early Christian church declared that it was whack.

Included in your unstated or implied premises were that:

-there was an early Christian church (around the turn of the first century)

-that it was developed enough and cohesive enough that it had clearly defined beliefs

-that St. Ignatius either was the church spokesman and was honest and knowledgeable or that he was authoritatively positioned to be able to set church doctrine

-that he correctly understood the polythesistic implications (if any) of what he was writing.

-that he is the one that that actually wrote your quote

-that the quote you gave has been accurately conveyed though the ages

Also implied in your post, though perhaps extraneous to your argument proper is that Christians are somehow or other defined by St. Ignatius and extending out a bit, that polytheism is bad.

I'd say that at best, each of your premises, stated and implied are shakey, at best.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 05:32 PM

Or that, though regarded as one of the most important of the Apostolic Fathers (he and St Polycarp used to hang with John the Apostle) he may have been in error with regards to polytheism?

I wonder how much hanging they used to do.

John would have been 40, 50 or older at the time Ignatius was born and thus at the time Ignatius was 25, John might have been 65, 75, or older. John is rumored to have lived until 100 AD but may have been martyred much earlier.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 3 2004, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Aug 3 2004, 05:32 PM

Or that, though regarded as one of the most important of the Apostolic Fathers (he and St Polycarp used to hang with John the Apostle) he may have been in error with regards to polytheism?

I wonder how much hanging they used to do.

John would have been 40, 50 or older at the time Ignatius was born and thus at the time Ignatius was 25, John might have been 65, 75, or older. John is rumored to have lived until 100 AD but may have been martyred much earlier.

Or, as the BoM implies, John continues living to this day and could have "hung" with just about anyone. B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Aug 3 2004, 06:48 PM

Or, as the BoM implies, John continues living to this day and could have "hung" with just about anyone. B)

I thought the Book of Mormon was talking about John Kennedy.

[Jason]

I think it would be pretty hard to nail down an exact time. Suffice it to say that I've found a different source that says that Ignatius lived from 35-107AD. Ignatius was killed in Rome during the reign of Trajan who reigned from 98-117.

According to Church Father Victorinus (c 280, Ante-Nicean Fathers 7:353-354) St. John survived Domitian's reign (81-96) and lived at least into Nerva's reign (96-98) and possibly into Trajan's reign when he was called by the Bishops to write his testimony (The Gospel of St. John).

So it is actually possible that both St. Ignatius and St. John died early in the reign of Trajan. They were, then, contemporaries. And since the dates add up, and tradition holds it up, it stands to reason that Ignatius, when he writes of John, actually knew John personally.

[srm]

(he and St Polycarp used to hang with John the Apostle)

We're still waiting for you to document where, when and by which Apostles the Early Chruch Fathers were taught.

[srm]

If St Ignatius is preaching against polytheism, then that mean's he's advocating something else.  That something else is monotheism.

How do you know that the 'something else' is monotheism? There are other posibilties.

[Jason]

We're still waiting for you to document where, when and by which Apostles the Early Chruch Fathers were taught.

Apparently you neither read what I told you from the other thread, nor have you bothered to read anything on this thread. Since Im no longer interested in doing your homework for you, you can find out the what at this site:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

If you want to find out the where and when, search the names from the what link here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

How do you know that the 'something else' is monotheism? There are other posibilties.

Well, if you're preaching against polytheism, meaning many gods, and preaching One God, then what other possibilities could exist?

[srm]

We're still waiting for you to document where, when and by which Apostles the Early Chruch Fathers were taught.

Apparently you neither read what I told you from the other thread, nor have you bothered to read anything on this thread.  Since Im no longer interested in doing your homework for you, you can find out the what at this site: 

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm 

If you want to find out the where and when, search the names from the what link here: 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

No, your reference said, "Chief in importance are the three first-century Bishops: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, of whose intimate personal relations with the Apostles there is no doubt." Where does it document anything. This is cited from Irenaeus...who wasn't born 'til the second century. Can you provide a Primary source of where, when and with which Apostles St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna met? Please show the proof.

How do you know that the 'something else' is monotheism? There are other posibilties.

Well, if you're preaching against polytheism, meaning many gods, and preaching One God, then what other possibilities could exist?

Henotheism...for example

[Jason]

No, your reference said, "Chief in importance are the three first-century Bishops: St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, of whose intimate personal relations with the Apostles there is no doubt." Where does it document anything. This is cited from Irenaeus...who wasn't born 'til the second century. Can you provide a Primary source of where, when and with which Apostles St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna met? Please show the proof.

No primary sources exist, srm. Primary sources of that antiquity are hard to come by. We have Greek and Latin copies of ancient date, however, that indicate time and place. In my search, I have come across a nice website dedicated to Ignatius:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

I really liked this one for specifics:

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html

Henotheism...for example

That's a type of polytheism. Hardly an acceptable alternative.

[srm]

No primary sources exist, srm.  Primary sources of that antiquity are hard to come by. 

Good, we finally got there.

So when on July 22 you said, "Correct. The Church Fathers learned their doctrine from the Apostles. That's a historical fact..."

You were in error. It is not an historical fact.

However, Joseph Smith was taught by the Apostles...

[Jason]

Good, we finally got there.

So when on July 22 you said, "Correct. The Church Fathers learned their doctrine from the Apostles. That's a historical fact..."

You were in error. It is not an historical fact.

No. Ignatius says he was taught by John. Polycarp says he was taught by John. They lived during the time of John. The original letters written by Ignatius and Polycarp are long gone, but copies have survived.

However, Joseph Smith was taught by the Apostles...

Joseph Smith claimed he was visited by spirit personages calling themselves apostles.

Sts. Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement lived with them. There's a big difference.