Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
Posted on 11/06/2015 11:30:07 AM PST by NYer
Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called “primitivismâ€. I’ve written about it here. “Primitivism†is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the “early churchâ€.
The little fundamentalist church in which I grew up worked on this assumption. They were going back to basics and getting rid of all those “man made traditionsâ€. They were cutting out the denominations and prayers read out of books and all that fancy stuff and it would be just the Bible.
Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t. This blog post outlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t.
Thisoutlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.
The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Christmas liturgy of the third century. It is written in Greek and dates to approximately 250 A.D.In 1917, the John Rylands Library in Manchester acquired a large panel of Egyptian papyrus including the 18 cm by 9.4 cm fragment shown at left, containing the text of this prayer in Greek.
C.H. Roberts published this document in 1938. His colleague E. Lobel, with whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, basing his arguments on paleographic analysis, argued that the text could not possibly be older than the third century, and most probably was written between 250 and 300. This hymn thus precedes the “Hail Mary†in Christian prayer by several centuries.
Here's the text:
On the papyrus:
.ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙÎΔΥÎΟΥ
…ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
…HEΥΛΟΓ
Here it is set to music:
Turns out the hymn to the Theotokos (the God Bearer) dates from 250 AD.
What is very interesting about these comparatively recent documentary and archeological discoveries is not only what we can gather from the scraps of text themselves, but how they become part of a much larger puzzle. We can piece things together to build up a better picture of the true facts.
The hymn is clearly a prayer to the Blessed Virgin asking for her intercession and assistance in time of trouble. This shows continuity with the belief of the church down through the ages. I’m thinking “Mary Help of Christians.â€
Therefore, if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself.
In addition to this, if the hymn-prayer is included in the liturgy, then it must be something which is approved by the church and in practice on a fairly widespread basis. If it is included in the liturgy, then the term “theotokos†was not simply a theological term or a theological concept, but something which was integrated into the worshipping and devotional life of the church from the earliest days.
That argument also goes the other way: if the term “theotokos†was used in a hymn-prayer venerating the Blessed Virgin, then a high view of her significance in the plan of redemption must also have been prevalent in the theology of the early church.
You want primitive Christianity? You want to worship like the “early church†then Marian devotion had better be part of it!
She wasn't looking too far into the future...She had no prophecy of the 'church' to look forward to...She was looking for the Messiah to show up...The Messiah, an anointed King...The deliverer...
She was not anticipating God showing up...None of the Jews were...
I think theotokos means Christ Bearer, at least in the Orthodox world. So absolutely Elizabeth wouldn't know that term. But it later became one of Mary's titles.
Actually no...Theotokos means the birth giver of God...In that alone, we know Mary was not the birth giver of God so it's the wrong word to put on Mary...The Catholics changed it to the mother of God...
You would/will be labled a heretic by the Catholic church because you take the position of a Catholic heretic named Nestorius, and the bible...
Nestorius knew that the bible said Mary was the Christ bearer (Christotokos), not (Theotokos)the God bearer...But that doesn't fit with Catholic man-mad theology so they claim it is a heretical view...But then again the Catholic Mary is not the Mary of the bible...
When Catholic say Jesus is God (so naturally Mary is the mother of God), they leave out an important distinction...Jesus is: God, made man...Mary is not the mother of God...Mary is the mother of the flesh which housed the divine Jesus...
Act_4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
No other name??? Not Mary's name???
Well who to believe??? The Catholic catechism or the actual words of God??? Someone is lying...Could it be God???
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
The message of the Incarnation is clear. God chose Mary as the Mediatrix for human salvation.
Well, if that's so, why did God send his Son into the world to bear the punishment for our sins when, according to you (and, I assume you're speaking for Roman Catholic teaching and dogma), did God choose Mary as the Mediatrix for human salvation? Why did he not send her to the cross for our sins since, according to Roman Catholic teaching, she was born sinless? Why did God the Father need to send God the Son to the cross for our sins when he already chose Mary to be our Mediatrix?
Just. Wow.
God provided His Word. He provided scripture to us through divine inspiration. The Roman Catholic Church didn't "write" nor "provide" anything -- God did. Had the abomination of Roman Catholicism never existed, God would STILL have provided us His scripture. Why? Because God alone is sovereign and almighty.
The "plague" of Protestantism, as you so intriguingly state it, is the reason why we can actually know and have the truth of God's Word. Thank God for Luther and his use of Luther to bring His Truth and Scripture out of hiding and into the hands of all Christians!
You wrote:
You ask for a reference on Mary, and one is provided. Instead of engaging in a careful read, it is dismissed as a cut-and-paste job. Of course, this is the kind of laziness one expects from shallow Bible Christians who easily dismiss the work of their own theologians who convert to Catholicism.
I'm still waiting for a biblical reference where Mary is indicated as a Mediatrix with Christ, or where she is indicated anywhere as participating in our salvation in any way.... And, I will continue to wait, because there is NO reference ANYWHERE in Scripture that states that Mary has ANYTHING to do with our salvation. Had God chosen another virgin to bear his Son, that woman would again have had NO place in mediating or saving us. Only Christ is our Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), and no one comes to the Father (i.e. no one is saved) unless they come through Christ (John 14:6).
Now, show me chapter and verse where Mary is in any way a Mediatrix or participant in our salvation.
You wrote:
Christ taught ONE truth for ALL time.
If only the Roman Catholic Church would stop there and actually BELIEVE WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT instead of making up a bunch of heretical doctrines out of whole cloth, and then teaching that rot to poor souls, jeopardizing their eternal souls.
So please do, if you can, show us a reference from God's Word about Mary being anything other than the vessel used to bring Jesus into this world. That is a wonderful blessing and honor indeed -- but she was not sinless.. only Christ. She was not holy -- none of us are -- until Christ saved her as well.... a truth that she herself acknowledged.
It seems to me that the claim you make -- that "low-information Bible Christians" are grasping at straws -- aren't the ones stranded in pews gasping for truth; Roman Catholics are being suffocated by "Holy Tradition" and other Godless, unbiblical tripe that robs them of the source of grace and truth.
Try reading God's Word. Really, really reading it.
You may be surprised to find that Rome doesn't teach what's in God's Word.
Hoss
The "galaxy" of theologians do not include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter and Jude. I think they are in that same galaxy. Yet not a peep about Mary as intercessor for man's salvation.
Therein lies your problem. You ignore sacred tradition: John 21: 25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written.”
Even before the Bible was offered as the written word of God, there was a tradition of devotion and intercession through Mary.
We have Iscool here saying on one hand thatnterpretation does not matter, and then spouting Biblical quotes to supply us “his” understanding of scripture. This is what David Koresh and Jim Jones, and the Moonies do as well.
In fact, as Christians, we are supposed to disassociate ourselves from persons who do not follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If oral tradition is not to be followed, why did St. Paul state that Christ said something that is not recorded in the Gospels (Acts 20:35)?
St. Paul must have “heard†this saying, not read it from the Gospel or “Scrpture,†thereby, proving that some things Christ said were not recorded in the Gospels (John 21:25) and were passed on orally among His disciples instead, but were just as valid as anything written since St. Paul himself used one of these oral passages in one of his own epistles.
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No.
The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written “Word of God” to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through “oral†teachings by the Church, not by writings.
No one can hold a candle to the Himalayan reaches of Catholic theologians. This is why we have several pre-eminent Lutheran and Protestant theologians convert to Catholicism after a lifetime of scholarship and teaching.
This is why today to identify one self as a Christian who is not a Catholic is an embarrassment in informed circles.
An embarrassment, you say?
Have you read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3357056/posts
We will no doubt hear next "where in the Bible does it say we are saved by Christ Alone."
What about this embarrassment:
“Rejoice, Thou that didst adopt us at the Cross of Thy Son! Rejoice, Thou that didst unite God with mankind!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3357454/posts
I laughed for just one second until I realized that you, sadly, are right.
Hoss
Even before the Bible was offered as the written word of God, there was a tradition of devotion and intercession through Mary.
That verse in no way says what was presented written was incomplete. Actually a difficulty for your argument as the same John said:
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Like your tagline. :)
Which is another example of the variant interpretations of Scripture and of Rome by RCs. V2 somehow affirms properly baptized Prots are part of the body of Christ separated brethren through whom the Spirit works (and rather than separating them with the sword it affirms religious freedom.)
Yet others require eating the wafer god for salvation.
I take it you mean they're high. That does help explain how they get to their significant doctrinal error.
Thanks for the clarification.
Indeed. And which is an argument against the Islamic/Dan Brown charge that it was changed to support RC beliefs. Seriously, how hard would it have been to add
1. Just one prayer to an angel or OT saint to Stephen, rather than have the approx. 200 prayers only being to the Lord, leaving Caths having to resort to vainly arguing they can just ask souls in Heaven to pray for them (even if by kneeling before statues of them and beseeching them for mercies) like they do on earth.
2. Just one exhortation or command to submit to Peter as the supreme universal head in Rome, or a criticism of them for not doing so, or a commendation for doing so, rather than that being utterly absent in all the life of the church in Scripture, despite their many problems and virtues?
3. Just one example of the church meeting with leaders distinctively named "priests" turning bread and wine into the "real" body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sin to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life. Rather then this being entirely absent in the life of the church (Acts and epistles) interpretive of the gospels, and only manifestly described in one epistle, in which the body to be discerned is the church ?
More here .
If you were a doctor you'd be a quack...HaHaHa...
And now we see from this thread that without the intercession of Mary there is no salvation. So add that to the list.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3357056/posts
So the apostle John tells us not only to focus on what was written and ignore what was not written but he told us that what was written was everything we needed to know to attain salvation...
I think we'll stick with the apostle John on that one...
This guy is clearly teaching another gospel that Paul warned us about...A false gospel...Steelfish, the apostles warned us about you guys...
Could be they tried and God smoked them on the spot...
I’m sure John 21:25 could be used by Mormons, JWs, David Koresh, Jim Jones and any other cult to justify non biblical doctrines.
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.