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!
This is what Scripture CLEARLY says.
WITHOUT it being twisted to *interpret* it to mean something different from what the clear plain meaning is.
I think Luke was educated enough to know the difference between *firstborn* and *ONLY* son.
Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...
Matthew 1:18-25 Now 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. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Psalm 69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Luke 2:1-7 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
John 7:2-5 Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For not even his brothers believed in him.
Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Original Word: συγγενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, Ephesians 1:3
If believers have every spiritual blessing it sure sounds like they are blessed just as Mary....nothing more, nothing less.
I love the copious Scriptures. In contrast, I find regrettable the more recent minimalist interpretations (by 'recent' I mean, originating in the post-Reformation --- much of it 200 years ago or less) which misconstrue Mary to such a drastic extent that they almost miss the Incarnation.
These minimalists show an almost total absence of a knowledge or even interest in OT typology for Mary, and this really stunts comprehension. It cuts off the OT culture which provides so much that foreshadowed and "typified" of the Mother of the Messiah.
But rather than roll out all of my cut-and-pastes to match yours (imagine these swarms of letter forming up into teams, an then lobbing punctuation at each other!) I'll just let some of the Fathers of the Reformation open up the Scriptural points for us all:
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
I recommended this book to ealgeone:
Here's another, shorter one, which may be better for people who (like me) are fairly new to the OT typology for Mary:
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah by Brant Pitre
I truly think that, as a Scripture person, you'll find this fascinating.
I'm working on my music today and may not have time to respond further. Two things, though, to keep in mind:
Profound significance. Stunning beauty May God bless you withthese treasured.
In contrast, I find regrettable the more recent minimalist interpretations (by 'recent' I mean, originating in the post-Reformation --- much of it 200 years ago or less) which dumpstered so much of what even the "reformers' knew, and which shrink Mary to such a drastic extent that they almost miss the Incarnation.
These minimalists show an almost total absence of a knowledge or even interest in OT typology for Mary, and this really stunts comprehension. It cuts off the OT culture which provides so much that foreshadowed and "typified" of the Mother of the Messiah.
But rather than roll out all of my cut-and-pastes to match yours (imagine these swarms of letter forming up into teams, an then lobbing punctuation at each other!) I'll just let some of the Fathers of the Reformation open up the Scriptural points for us all:
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
I recommended this book to ealgeone:
Here's another, shorter one, which may be better for people who (like me) are fairly new to the OT typology for Mary:
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah by Brant Pitre
I truly think that, as a Scripture person, you'll find this fascinating.
I'm working on my music today and may not have time to respond further. Two things, though, to keep in mind:
Profound significance. Stunning beauty May God bless your mind and heart with these treasures.
Your lack of understanding of Scripture or maybe just blind devotion to your denomination's false teachings have completely deceived you on this.
IF you're going to insist that Revelation 12:1 is about Mary then you have to allow 12:2 to be about Mary as well.
1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. Rev 12:1-2 NASB
The astute reader will quickly recognize the little connecting word AND in these verses.
IF you insist Mary is in v1 then Mary is in v2 which indicates she cried out in pain to give birth...which would be the normal impact of giving birth.
This means the curse of Genesis 3:16 is in effect for Mary.
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Gen 3:16
This means Mary was under the curse of sin and this was the punishment for the original disobedience of Eve.
No sound exegesis, grammar or Biblical hermeneutic would allow for the subject of the sentence to change. However, this is what Roman Catholicism is asserting. It is a very, very poor exegesis on Rome's part to allow, or even, insist on this.
You may prescribe to some of the discredited apocryphal writings that suggest Jesus somehow showed up without passing through the birth canal as any other baby would.
IF you're appealing to these you really are going down the road of the Gnostics.
the 'brothers' of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels were certainly half-brothers (via Joseph), cousins or other kinsmen, never ever identified as sons of Mary;
No. When you have to start using words like "certainly" your hypothesis is in trouble. It's like so much of Roman Catholic theology on Mary. It's a lot of "it seems", "we think", etc.
But this position is also based upon the discredited Protoevanglium of James as is your other point. The PoJ was deemed to be a false writing.
The consensus is that it was actually composed in the latter half of the second century. The first mention of it is in the early third century by Origen of Alexandria, who says the text, like that of a Gospel of Peter, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the "brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[7] Although a number of church councils condemned it as an inauthentic writing of the New Testament, this did little to diminish its popularity. Pope Innocent I condemned this Gospel of James in his third epistle ad Exuperium in 405 AD, and the so-called Gelasian Decree also excluded it as canonical around 500 AD.[8][9] Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, rejects the Protevangelium of James teaching that midwives were present at Christ's birth, and invokes Jerome as contending that the words of the canonical gospels show that Mary was both mother and midwife, that she wrapped up the child with swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger.
And thus concludes, "These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings."[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
Roman Catholicism has based a great deal of its Mariolatry on false, discredited writings.
To continue to insist otherwise is to deny Scripture.
The Roman Catholic has built their house on sand on this issue.
After all, it was written about 100 years after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem; many, if not all, who read John's last writings would already know of the first coming: Christ's lineage through many human generations, beginning from His first forebears Adam and Eve, and proceeding on through Abraham, Judah, David --- let's not forget His fascinating grandmamas Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba ---and Mary. They knew of His ministry of preaching and miracles, his suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension to the Father.
It's reasonable to consider that Rev. 12 is not figurative language about His *first* coming, nor an obstetrical observation of how that birth came about!
To conclude: His mother giving birth in the heavens does not symbolically represent the conclusion of her miraculous pregnancy in that stable in Bethlehem, but her continuing role as Mother of the Church.
Notice that other children of this Mother are spoken of s being already on the scene: (v 17) "those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus." Therefore, the children of the Church: us.
John was writing in a time of great travail, when ALL of the original Twelve --- except himself --- were now dead, and the WHOLE Church was being persecuted, and he himself would soon die in exile. He is encouraging the children of the Church that despite the travail, the Church is still "being born," and the devil (serpent or dragon) is still THEIR enemy, as it was and still is the enemy of the Woman (Gen. 3:15.)
This is a multivalent sign which portrays Mary, the mother of Christ, being also mother of the Church.
OB/GYN conclusions here are strictly out of order.
Your reaching like a drowning person for a life raft.
I find the Book of Revelation awfully puzzling, but I'll tell you what: I don't think what was happening with the Lady Clothed with the Sun, in the heavens above John's head, was supposed to be the birth of Jesus in an animal stall in Bethlehem. Do you?
You continue to cite this passage as referring to Mary when Roman Catholic sources admit this is not the case.
Regarding Gen 3:15 I quote from the catholic encyclopedia.
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Further, the same source says about the Immaculate Conception.....No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
In other words, it's not a scriptural based dogma.
This is what's interesting on this topic. We show Roman Catholics from their own sources where their version of scripture is wrong and Roman Catholics continue to parrot their ingrained talking points.
I was replying to your post about Mary where you referenced Revelation 12.
Are you now saying this is not about Mary??
Nonsense. Nothing in Scripture indicates Mary is the mother of the church. She's the mother of JESUS and his siblings.
Nothing more and nothing less.
For instance, I never referred to the version of Gen 3:15 which says "she shall crush your head" (using a feminine pronoun.) That is an erroneous translation and has never been used in any Bible translation I use, either here on my bookshelf on online.
I am referring rather to the part where God says, "I will put enmity between you (serpent) and the woman."
"Enmity between you and the woman" is in your Bible, I believe?
"...And between your seed and her seed."
"Your seed and her seed" is in your Bible, I believe?
I didn't say anything about "she (feminine pronoun) will crush your head."
It's just tiresome to be waylaid into futile tangents when you refute things I didn't say. It doesn't make for productive discussion.
You are calling the rendering in Genesis 3:15 in the official Bible translation of the Roman Catholic church as "erroneous"?
15I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
********************************************
Before we move on let's be clear.
You are saying the Douay-Rheims translation is "erroneous"?
I don't think you can even get a copy of the 1609 Douay-Rheims unless you're possibly a rich collector of rare and out-of-print books. The only one I've ever seen with my own eyes, in a library, was the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version from 150 years later, completed during the 1700's by Bishop Richard Challoner, and partly based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (rather than just the Latin Vulgate).
The translation used in my Lectionary for Mass (copyright 1970) is the New American Bible (NAB). Since around 2011 I think the Lectionaries have been New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).
There are a number of translations in English; in the USA, the USCCB s provides a list of fourteen approved versions published over the last 35 years or so.
I recommend for my students the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament. The Didache Bible—Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition is also good, with excellent commentaries all based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The DR is based on the Vulgate is it not?
Was this not the version used to quote in Ineffabilis Deus?
Is this not the version quoted in the catholicencyclopedia online's article about the Immaculate Conception?
Is this not the version that many RCs have quoted on these very forums....you may have been one but I don't recall for sure.
I've just learned that the Revised Standard Version (RSV) is considered the first ecumenical Bible and brought together the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible AND and the Protestant Authorized Version.
I think the NAB and NABRE are both heavily sourced from the RSV.
Do you use RSV?
Biblehub and Biblegateway both have an extensive collection of translations for no charge.
Do you use RSV?
I primarily use the NASB along with the Greek texts we have.
I've also used Young's Literal Translation from time to time.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia noted....it originated after the fourth century and cannot be defended critically.
Rome is reading their Mariology back in to the text. That is eisegesis.
It is a terrible way to formulate theology.
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.