Posted on 07/23/2019 9:37:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A 1700-year-old letter that was recently discovered is said to reveal the way Christians actually lived centuries ago.
The Papyrus P.Bas. 2.43 was written by a man named Arrianus to his brother Paulus, who was believed to be named after the apostle Paul. The letter has been dated to 230s AD and is thus older than all previously known Christian documentary evidence from Roman Egypt.
It describes day-to-day family matters and provides insight into the world of the first Christians in the Roman Empire.
“The earliest Christians in the Roman Empire are usually portrayed as eccentrics who withdrew from the world and were threatened by persecution. This is countered by the contents of the Basel papyrus letter,” said Sabine Huebner, professor of ancient history at the University of Basel in Switzerland.
The letter was concluded by the phrase: “I pray that you farewell ‘in the Lord.” This statement is their proof that the writer was actually a Christian.
“The use of this abbreviation – known as a nomen sacrum in this context – leaves no doubt about the Christian beliefs of the letter writer,” Sabine added. “It is an exclusively Christian formula that we are familiar with from New Testament manuscripts.”
The University of Basel has been holding onto the 1700-year-old letter for the past 100 years. It originated in the village of Theadelphia in central Egypt and belongs to the Heronius archive. The Heronius archive is the largest papyrus archive from the Roman Times.
Arrianus and Paulus were the sons of the local elite, landowners and public official. The letter discusses politics, food, and faith during those times.
“Greetings, my lord, my incomparable brother Paulus. I, Arrianus, salute you, praying that all is as well as possible in your life.
“[Since] Menibios was going to you, I thought it necessary to salute you as well as our lord father. Now, I remind you about the gymnasiarch, so that we are not troubled here. Heracleides would be unable to take care of it: he has been named to the city council. Find thus an opportunity that you buy the two [–] arouras.
“But send me the fish liver sauce too, whichever you think is good. Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. Salute our brothers [-]genes and Xydes. All our people salute you.
“I pray that you fare well in the Lord.”
What a miracle that we are still digging up more and more artifacts dating back to the time of Christ!
Easily- the scriptures themselves are all the evidence I need. http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
The scriptures don’t allow for supplementation by “church traditions” over centuries. Don’t get hung up on the Latin term of convenience “Sola Scriptura.” The concept that the scriptures themselves are sufficient, and any doctrine contrary to them is to be rejected, was inherent in the scriptures from the beginning. The apostolic fathers also clearly taught that principle. http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-anti-refuted-unscriptural.htm
But it’s not surprising that the political organization known as the RCC had to try to justify its existence somehow when it arose centuries after the church Christ had established. The only way to do that was to vary the apostles’ teaching. There are consequences to every decision.
And here’s a little more information on the validity of those traditions people cling to: http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-tradition.htm
Let those who are willing to listen, listen.
That can't be denied. And as for this-- "The concept that the scriptures themselves are sufficient, and any doctrine contrary to them is to be rejected, was inherent in the scriptures from the beginning." --- we agree with it. Nothing that flatly contradicts Scripture can be a doctrine by any means.
Good short short video on the roots of Tradition and Liturgy:
Justin Maryr and Eucharist, with a click.
As for your view of Catholic Church "arising" centuries after the Church Christ founded, we might both learn a lot of tracing the sure continuities represented by "your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, James and John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus: Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian..."
I'll read your links. Not right now though, I'm (supposed to be) cooking supper!
Acts 15:8-9 NASB
Yet you falsely presume what is seen in Roman Catholicism today is what is meant by "Tradition" as used by Paul in the NT.
Your next point refutes your first.
That can't be denied. And as for this-- "The concept that the scriptures themselves are sufficient, and any doctrine contrary to them is to be rejected, was inherent in the scriptures from the beginning." --- we agree with it. Nothing that flatly contradicts Scripture can be a doctrine by any means.
Mary being sinless contradicts Scripture.
Mary being a perpetual virgin contradicts Scripture.
Sure, which is why James and John were arguing over who would be the greatest and asked Jesus to let THEM sit at His right hand and left hand in His kingdom.
You know...that further indicates that Peter was not who our RC friends build him up to be.
I don’t know what you are thinking, Peter was the “Chief” Apostle and all the other Apostles deferred to him.
Sure, which is why James and John were arguing over who would be the greatest and asked Jesus to let THEM sit at His right hand and left hand in His kingdom.
__________________________________________________________
While that question was asked, it was before Christ delivered the Keys of The Kingdom to Peter.
There’s nothing that happened afterwards to indicate that the other apostles deferred to Peter.
Matter of fact, Paul confronted him to his face about matters in which he was wrong.
They were co-equals.
God is no respecter of persons and we are not to be either.
He does not advocate for elevating any one human above another as we are all sinners and none better than any other. Just different.
Get that? In His origins, utterly untouched by sin.
Concerning Mary's every-virginity: there is nothing in Scripture on the state of Mary's hymen, --- I blush to say it --- and any other supposition compromises the fidelity we know she maintained as the chosen one, who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit to be ever-virginal Mother of the Redeemer.
God chose her for a union beyond all telling, where Eternity breaks into Time and Infinity into Space, and she conceives in her womb the Creator and Sovereign of All -- all things were created through Him, all things were created for Him.
Read this, eageone: This is He whom the whole Universe cannot contain. This makes her --- HIs mother ---far greater than the Ark of the Covenant which foreshadows and proclaims her --- and then ---
You think He tosses her off to marital union with someone else? "Here, I got what I wanted , now you can have her"? You should blush with shame.
I invite you --- with awe ---to renew your understanding of what was foretold of this Blessed Lady by Moses and all the prophets. Of which you know, I think, very little. Very little. But look into it, if you love the Lord and His word.
Which were???????
NOBODY has ever answered the questions I've asked about it.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
A grace which we as believers ALL have bestowed on us.
That word you all Catholics like so much is used in ONE other place in Scripture and it applies to all born again, born from above believers.
Grace and Mary
The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul tells us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Greek word “grace”
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
Word Origin: from charis
Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace
NASB Translation: favored (1), freely bestowed (1).
Nowhere in that definition does the word mean or imply sinless.
The ark of the covenant does NOT foreshadow Mary. It foreshadows JESUS.
Read this, eageone: This is He whom the whole Universe cannot contain. This makes her --- HIs mother ---far greater than the Ark of the Covenant which foreshadows and proclaims her --- and then ---
You think He tosses her off to marital union with someone else? "Here, I got what I wanted , now you can have her"? You should blush with shame.
Mary was married to Joseph, HER HUSBAND, at the time of the Annunciation.
Why did the Holy Spirit choose a married women to impregnate if what you all claim is true? Weren't there enough virgins in Israel to choose from?
And if she pledged herself to perpetual virginity, then what was she doing being married?
This nonsense about her being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is ridiculous.
Matthew 1:18-20Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Or are you going to tell us now that the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary, like the Mormons believe?
I invite you --- with awe ---to renew your understanding of what was foretold of this Blessed Lady by Moses and all the prophets. Of which you know, I think, very little. Very little. But look into it, if you love the Lord and His word.
This is ALL that the prophets state about Mary.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Everything else Catholicism attributes to Mary, the immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her assumption, etc, is pure and simple fabrication and wishful thinking, none of which is unsupported by any Scripture.
I’m not sure I understand your point.
You compare God’s grace after the redemptive work of Christ to a person possessing that grace before that redemptive work, then saying “no big deal.”
Please explain.
You really need to ditch your mystical approach to all of this. You're really starting to sound like a New-Age Gnostic in your apologetics.
I'm not going to refute your points below as that has been done on numerous occasions. Suffice to say though Scripture denies what you assert.
This is what the reader needs to understand about this passage.
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4
Luke investigated this in detail. He was a physician. His writings, and the rest of the New Testament and Old Testament, refute your positions in crystal clear detail.
I invite you to study the Scripture, and only Scripture, so you will come away with the correct understanding of Scripture on this topic and others.
Please clarify your question/assertion.
If you either are unaware of it, or consider it beneath your notice and thus not worth refuting, either attitude makes discussion --- did I call this a discussion? --- impossible.
But I will recommend a fairly new book which will yield insight to the attentive. It is "Rethinking Mary in the New Testament: What the Bible Tells Us about the Mother of the Messiah" by Edward Sri.
I understand that Mary in the Old Testament might seem like a foreign concept to many if they have never studied the Holy Scriptures in detail or understand biblical Typology. BUt I would think that you, with your years of interest in, and study of, the OT, would at least evince a little interest, if not some degree of understanding.
No, the use of the term is correct in that the Gnostics believed they had special insight into things that only they could see.
And saying Luke is "crystal clear" on Mary being a sinner and a mother of other children besides Jesus seems wilfully ignoring the large body of analysis of Scripture which says exactly the opposite.
Large body of analysis of Scripture by who? Roman Catholics? I've seen their apologetics on this and find them severely lacking.
The NT is clear that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Each and every one of us, Mary included.
Even the ECFs concede this point. Some say she was indeed a sinner.
So see, reliance upon "tradition" fails you in this argument.
If you either are unaware of it, or consider it beneath your notice and thus not worth refuting, either attitude makes discussion --- did I call this a discussion? --- impossible.
I can go through your post point by point if you need me to. I've done it so many times before.
But I will recommend a fairly new book which will yield insight to the attentive. It is "Rethinking Mary in the New Testament: What the Bible Tells Us about the Mother of the Messiah" by Edward Sri.
Why? More regurgitation of already disproven RC talking points?
I understand that Mary in the Old Testament might seem like a foreign concept to many if they have never studied the Holy Scriptures in detail or understand biblical Typology.
Those of us who have studied the OT do understand this is a foreign concept. The only way one can see more of Mary in the OT is through eisegesis....reading something into the text that isn't there. Kinda like the name it and claim it prosperity hucksters.
BUt I would think that you, with your years of interest in, and study of, the OT, would at least evince a little interest, if not some degree of understanding.
And that is why the Roman Catholic position is rejected by those of us who do study the OT and NT. It just isn't in there no matter how much the RCC wants it to be.
Catholics claim Mary was born and remained sinless because she was *full of grace*.
But we all have that same grace, the same Greek word is used, poured out on us as believers.
Does that mean we are born and remain sinless, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.