HE WAS SENT to Rome in a detachment of ten soldiers to be executed. Ignatius of Antioch. At a fork in the road somewhere in the midst of Asia Minor, probably Laodicea, his jailers made an impromptu decision. Knowing that the self-proclaimed Image-bearer maintained a show of support along the Mediterranean coast, particularly in Magnesia and Ephesus, they changed their itinerary, preferring the northern route through Philadelphia and perhaps Sardis, meeting up at last with Smyrna. Along the way, Ignatius wrote a series of letters.

In fact, he wrote seven of them.

            He wrote to the Ephesians.

To the Magnesians.

The Trallians.

The Romans.

The Philadelphians.

The Smyrnaeans.

And finally, to Polycarp.

Never let a good death march go to waste. In fact, make a parade out of it. Ignatius was a shameless self-promoter. His long-winded introduction to the Smyrnaeans includes such personal attributes as being “mercifully endowed with every spiritual gift.” Letters were written, messengers were dispatched, and to anyone remotely paying attention, an orchestrated effort was underway. Rome seemed determined to make a martyr out of him. In Smyrna, a delegation was prepared. He then wrote another letter to Rome, alerting Christians to his soon arrival. His are letters of grave importance, because they detail for us in unparalleled light the championed view of the early first century—only a decade after the death of Yohanan, the disciple whom Messiah loved. That is not to say the road to Rome paved for us the narrow way.

His was a disinformation campaign. Christianity.

In order to wrestle control away from the authority of Hebrew Scripture and mold an image of Jesus Christ for the coming centuries, Ignatius championed Pharisaical doctrines as the law of the land. Christianity needed its very own Talmud. Without the authority of the bishop we can do nothing.

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.”

Smyrnaeans 8:2

Eusebius reports that Ignatius was executed sometime during the midpoint of the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117), though this in itself is only presumed. He may have been included in the pyre or thrown to the beasts in the Coliseum. We simply do not know, as there is no contemporary of his who reported his death. Later accounts are deemed historically worthless. We do not know why he was arrested, but one or two things are certain. We would not read a single word until he was sentenced to die, and it is in Rome where he disappears from our rear-view mirror.

Though I readily admit it is mere speculation on my part, I conclusively hold to the view that Ignatius was perfectly attuned with the intentions of Sha’ul, otherwise known as Paul, and was furthermore an intended infiltration; more-so an installation; an instigator to the next phase of the plan. Though separated by a single generation, he and the self-proclaimed apostle were very much in league.

Both were agents.

HIS STORY is only comprehended when one is brave enough to pull back the curtain on Catholic propaganda and challenge the long-held orthodox position by recognizing the behemoth issue, which most contemporary scholars are aware of, but tragically choose to ignore. Shattering one’s own worldview is almost always far too uncomfortable, and challenging others to do the same is akin to taking a baseball bat to a wasp’s nest. A volatile split did in fact happen within the aboriginal decades of the church. In Antioch, Kepha scooted his chair out in judgement against the self-appointed thirteenth apostle, Sha’ul. However one ultimately undresses the quality and moral character of Paul’s actual epistles, it is most certainly true that the Ebionites and the Natsarim held to the Gospel of Matthew and the Tanakh, while the Christians of Antioch, initially under the leadership of Paul, disregarded Torah in favor of a new religion altogether.

Again—Christianity.

It is also true that the Catholic Church would wrestle feverishly over an entire millennium to make war with the saints in hopes of stamping them out altogether. For the most part, she succeeded. Let us consider the results. While we know much about the official main stream narrative, including the literature of the church fathers, we know practically nothing about the Natsarim, whom the church fathers openly opposed. Even their literature has been buried or altogether destroyed. The bad guys won, and however much the Reformation is romanticized by protestants and western evangelicalism alike, very basic historical revisionism will show that they never truly split from Rome to begin with. It was all controlled.

The left and the right hand.

The illusion of choice.

Like Marcion of Sinope (85-160AD), a contemporary of his, Ignatius wanted a unified church completely removed from the faith of Moses and the Prophets—in other words, everyone who pointed to Yahshua HaMashiach and whom Yahshua likewise stood upon—and he employed the epistles of Paul to do his bidding. Consider Ignatius’ familiar tactic—one which even the Protestants would later apply. The whole of Scripture is to be employed as a lens, and therefore dissected, through Paul. Certainly not the other way around. Paul cannot possibly fail the Deuteronomy 13 test. Rather, Deuteronomy 13 fails Paul.

Ignatius argues against taking the narrow path when he writes:

“Moreover, I urge you to do nothing in a spirit of contentiousness, but in accordance with the teaching of Christ. For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives, I do not believe it in the gospel.” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ, the unalterable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith that comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.”

Philadelphians 8:2

Marcion would assign Yahuah to the villainous Demiurge of Neo-Platonism, creator of the physical world, whereas Ignatius was simply content relegating the Tanakh to antiquated myths. Same difference. They were strange doctrines, he said. Worthless. For Ignatius, anyone who does not agree with the Christian religion and lives in accordance with Torah has fallen from grace.

Ignatius wrote:

¹ Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since they are worthless. For if we continue to live in accordance with Judaism, we admit that we have not received grace.

² For the most-godly prophets lived in accordance with Christ Jesus. This is why they were persecuted, being inspired as they were by his grace in order that those who are disobedient might be fully convinced that there is one God who revealed himself through Jesus Christ his Son…

Magnesians 8:1-2

Though Ignatius perhaps worked with the Gospel of Matthew at his disposal, the favored text of both the Natsarim and Ebionite—the very brotherhood he was ironically attempting to suppress—there is no evidence for Mark. His familiarity with Luke is inconclusive, and the use of John is unlikely, which is particularly puzzling when one considers that propaganda loosely (and quite impossibly) holds Ignatius under the Apostle John’s pupilage alongside with Polycarp. More propaganda. For Ignatius, Paul was the sole voice of his religion. In his own arrogance, Ignatius championed the view that we are only to interpret Torah and the Prophets, if we are to interpret them at all, through the writings of Paul. This point has already been established. But what is furthermore important to note, considering the influence Ignatius has had on the history of the Christian religion, is the mere fact that Hebrew Scripture was notably absent from his intellectual library. Despite having little knowledge of Yahuah, if any at all, Ignatius insisted that the prophets of old did not live in accordance with the Law.

Rather, he claimed, they were Christian.

“If those who have been brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath but living in observance of the Lord’s day… how shall we be able to live apart from him, when even the prophets themselves—also his disciples—waited for him in the Spirit as their Teacher?”

Magnesians 9

It’s rather embarrassing, his total disdain for Yahuah’s instructions in righteousness, and in fact, an entire family history to go along with it. Quite embarrassing indeed, when he has never even taken the time to understand it. For example, every spring the Hebrew faith called upon a removal of leaven: bread made without yeast. This was an indicator of sin. Yahshua HaMashiach is the fulfillment of the feast of unleavened bread.

The Christian faith, Ignatius insisted, would be made with yeast.

¹ Therefore, having become his disciples, let us learn to live in accordance with Christianity. For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God.

² Throw out, therefore, the bad yeast, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new yeast, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted with him, so that none of you become rotten, for by your odor you will be convicted.

³ It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, in which every tongue believed and was brought together to God.

Magnesians 10:1-3

Is Ignatius attempting to beguile his audience—keep them ignorant? Undoubtedly.

In order to preserve his universal vision, Ignatius called upon bishops. Where the bishop is, the church is. Without the bishop, no group can be called a church (Trallians 3:1). Follow the council of presbyters and respect the deacons as the commandment of God (Smyrnaeans 8:1). Any Christian activity or service that takes place without either his presence or his permission has no validity.

“Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with him), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. Do not attempt to convince yourselves that anything done apart from the others is right….”

Magnesians 7:1

The Bishop would represent the God representative to his congregation. Vicar. In place of. It would therefore be the duty of the Christian to submit to the Bishop here on earth, as a third-person approach to their unity with heaven (Eph 6:1, Magn 3, Trall 2:2, 3:1, Phld 2:1, Smyrn 8:1). In these regards, one’s attitude towards the Bishop, essentially the Christian Talmud, would reflect their attitude towards Elohim.

Do not attempt to convince yourselves that anything done apart from the others is right.

Magnesians 7:1

Those who did not adhere to his warning, and persisted their Judaizing (hence, obedience to the Law), were likened to an evil plant needing plucked—and removed from salvation.

¹ Stay away from the evil plants, which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found any division among you: instead, I found that there had been a purification.

² For all those who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop, and all those who repent and enter into the unity of the church will belong to God, so that they may be living in accordance with Jesus Christ.

³ Do not be misled, my brothers and sisters: if any follow a schismatic, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any hold to alien views, they disassociate themselves from the passion.

Philadelphians 3:1-3

Torah obedience. Evil plants. Pluck. Removed from salvation. Natsarim.

Only a bishop of Satan speaks in such terms.

IN ROME, history loses sight of him. Perhaps the legends are true. As the story goes, his tormentors demanded that he call out any other name but Christ, and yet, despite all the afflictions of martyrdom which Ignatius willed to endure, his tongue never ceased to pronounce the name of Jesus. To do otherwise, he told them, would be preposterous. The man who insisted that the bulk of Hebrew Scripture be taken figuratively was speaking quite literally when he announced to his crowd of onlookers:

“Know ye for certain that I have in my heart this name written, and therefore I may not leave to name this name oft.”

As a pride of hungry lions approached, he was again recorded:

“I am wheat of Jesus Christ, which ought to be grounded between the teeth of these beasts, by which I may be pure bread, presented to my Lord.”

Rather than tearing his flesh, the Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints records that the lions simply strangled him, as if to put him out of his misery. It would take his tormentors to open up his body, after he was dead, and cut his heart out, by which was written the name of Jesus in fair letters of gold.

The date was July 6, 108 AD.

Then again, come July 7, it is entirely possible that he was sipping pinot noir from a coconut in Emperor Trajan’s bathhouse. Perhaps he simply appeared, brazen as an autumn leaf, and then vanished from the limb just as suddenly, in order apply a much larger, preconceived arrangement.

In modern terms, Ignatius was a spook.

It is no coincidence that the first mention to the Catholic church is one which is written to Rome, and accredits the Eucharist as true, and even incited a war against those who refuse it. In order to sever Christians from their Hebrew heritage, Ignatius abolished the Torah. Hence, Christianity.

He had no authority to do so.

-Noel