Which religious group do you belong to? Do you consider yourself to be judeo-christian, catholic, lutheran, or something else?
Ignatius is not mentioned in the Bible, and his writings, assuming they were real, were not included in the canonical Bible for a reason. To use his writings to try to come to conclusions from canon is unorthodox and some would consider it to be sacrilegious. Out of curiosity, do you consider the Apocryphal writings to be at the same level as the directly-inspired words of God of the 66 canonical books?
I find that today’s events make it clear and solidify that God is speaking of self-proclaimed jews when describing the Synagouge of Satan in Revelations as-written without needing external, peripheral writings that may or may not be applicable to the Holy Word of God. There’s simply too many coincidences for Christians to turn a blind eye to the jew-ish problem (and how they treat Christians and goyim) and it’s further supported by the aforementioned verses.
Thank you for asking! I'm a Jesus-is-Lord Christian, in a Reformed church and also regular in the Hebrew-roots community (not the legalistic one, the covenantal one). I also got confirmed Lutheran, get along well in Catholic churches, and claim all the spiritual rights of the New Israel, and claim just about any other title in Christianity. I'm a solid 66-book Bible guy.
To use history to come to contextual conclusions about the Bible is straightforward, such as to use the Herods and Caesars to date Paul's journeys. Because I'm in covenant with all believers, Ignatius the martyr is my friend and I believe God preserved his words to the same churches Jesus wrote to, where Ignatius was firsthand 12 years later. Ignatius, companion of John, is believed in history to have been one of the children Jesus blessed. I prayed for decades to learn the history of those churches where Jesus called out individuals and practices, and then I was blessed to realize the church always had the history and didn't tell me. (Obviously the deuterocanon apocrypha are not held by anyone to the same level as the 66 books, though they have human inspiration and are valued by many, and the patristics and other histories are treated as ordinary historical documents.)
Yes, before I discovered the history, I inferred grammaticohistorically that Jesus was indeed talking about (then-extant) "self-proclaimed [J]ews when describing the" synagogue of satan. (Your caps are funny.) Yes, there's secondary application if we find people whom we know are not Jews by the same high standard of knowledge as if Jesus said so. Jesus never said we get to deny the continuing Jewish community the right of being Jews, only two small groups of Gentiles (where we learn details of their infiltration from Ignatius). So the question goes to how we would get the right to tell a group externally that their self-designation is false, if we don't accord them the same external right to overrule our self-designation as Americans. That's not how nations work.
The fact that many Jews and many Gentiles are satanists is indeed the problem, but you are focused only on the Jewish side of it and ignoring the full work of the enemy (some people cherry-pick Jews and then call all outliers shabbos goyim, which is special pleading). I gave the grammaticohistorical reasons that Jesus is calling out seven works of satan, not just one. You add the althist idea that a continuous population that absorbs another one can be declared broken and replaced rather than identical, but that's not how any merger works in Bible, history, or law.
Paul says all Israel will be saved, the Jews will persevere until the vast majority of them turn to Jesus. Catholics and Protestants have finally learned how to start giving Jews the good news of Jesus and there's a Messianic Jewish explosion. And part of seeing them saved is removing stumbling blocks, such as our removing the right of self-identification, our treating the race monolithically, or our blaming most all satanic works on Jews. He uses them as human shields!
Which religious group do you belong to? Do you consider yourself to be judeo-christian, catholic, lutheran, or something else?
Ignatius is not mentioned in the Bible, and his writings, assuming they were real, were not included in the canonical Bible for a reason. To use his writings to try to come to conclusions from canon is unorthodox and some would consider it to be sacrilegious. Out of curiosity, do you consider the Apocryphal writings to be at the same level as the directly-inspired words of God of the 66 canonical books?
I find that today’s events make it clear and solidify that God is speaking of self-proclaimed jews when describing the Synagouge of Satan in Revelations as-written without needing external, peripheral writings that may or may not be applicable to the Holy Word of God. There’s simply too many coincidences for Christians to turn a blind eye to the jew-ish problem (and how they treat Christians and goyim) and it’s further supported by the aforementioned verses.
Thank you for asking! I'm a Jesus-is-Lord Christian, in a Reformed church and also regular in the Hebrew-roots community (not the legalistic one, the covenantal one). I also got confirmed Lutheran, get along well in Catholic churches, and claim all the spiritual rights of the New Israel, and claim just about any other title in Christianity. I'm a solid 66-book Bible guy.
To use history to come to contextual conclusions about the Bible is straightforward, such as to use the Herods and Caesars to date Paul's journeys. Because I'm in covenant with all believers, Ignatius the martyr is my friend and I believe God preserved his words to the same churches Jesus wrote to, where Ignatius was firsthand 12 years later. Ignatius, companion of John, is believed in history to have been one of the children Jesus blessed. I prayed for decades to learn the history of those churches where Jesus called out individuals and practices, and then I was blessed to realize the church always had the history and didn't tell me. (Obviously the deuterocanon apocrypha are not held by anyone to the same level as the 66 books, though they have human inspiration and are valued by many, and the patristics and other histories are treated as ordinary historical documents.)
Yes, before I discovered the history, I inferred grammaticohistorically that Jesus was indeed talking about (then-extant) "self-proclaimed [J]ews when describing the" synagogue of satan. (Your caps are funny.) Yes, there's secondary application if we find people whom we know are not Jews by the same high standard of knowledge as if Jesus said so. Jesus never said we get to deny the continuing Jewish community the right of being Jews, only two small groups of Gentiles (where we learn details of their infiltration from Ignatius). So the question goes to how we would get the right to tell a group externally that their self-designation is false, if we don't accord them the same external right to overrule our self-designation as Americans. That's not how nations work.
The fact that many Jews and many Gentiles are satanists is indeed the problem, but you are focused only on the Jewish side of it and ignoring the full work of the enemy (some people cherry-pick Jews and then call all outliers shabbos goyim, which is special pleading). I gave the grammaticohistorical reasons that Jesus is calling out seven works of satan, not just one. You add the althist idea that a continuous population that absorbs another one can be declared broken and replaced rather than identical, but that's not how any merger works in Bible, history, or law.
Paul says all Israel will be saved, the Jews will persevere until the vast majority of them turn to Jesus. Catholics and Protestants have finally learned how to start giving Jews the good news of Jesus and there's a Messianic Jewish explosion. And part of seeing them saved is removing stumbling blocks, such as our removing the right of self-identification, our treating the race monolithically, or our blaming most all satanic works on Jews. He uses them as human shields!