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!
But what we do get is the promise that there is nothing outside of the bible that can contribute to our salvation...Everything we need to get saved in contained within the scriptures...
We don't need Mary...We don't need a pope...We don't need the Eucharist...We don't need to send our prayers to anyone other than God...We don't need priests...We don't need confession to a Catholic priest...We don't need statues...We don't need relics and we don't even need candles...And a host of other things they put themselves in bondage to that are not listed in the bible...
Does the bible really say that adding the things we listed above is bad? Does the bible not give license for a "pope" to add or change things all he wants? When the Word of God speaks of itself it must not say it very clearly or something.
OK it is clear for me but it is not clear for a billion Catholics for whom the bible is a handbook of religious hints not an exhaustive, living and active work and Word of God.
Very well said, I’ll add that to my anti-Mary verses.
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
More accurately, Jesus is God in the flesh...A distinction with a difference...
So Jesus is the Son of God. But is Jesus God? Just as we can find nowhere in Scripture where anyone says Mary is the “mother of Godâ€, neither can we find anywhere in Scripture where anyone says “Jesus is Godâ€. But Scripture clearly reveals that Jesus is God. This is most clearly revealed when Jesus tells the Jews in John 8:58, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.â€
Your religion is missing the difference...God became manifest, revealed in the flesh...The flesh was not God...The flesh was not before Abraham...You may not like the obvious implication but, oh well...It is what it is...
If you really study the words in scripture you'll know why Mary is not called the mother of God...It's because she isn't...
What's in a moniker??? We are known by our fruits...Not just how we appear to the public but the fruits of our adherence to the instruction book, the bible...
You may notice in the portion of the instruction book for Christians there is no pomp...No flashy clothes, precious jewels or metal...No repetitious prayers read out of a book...Not a single verse telling us to give the mother of Jesus a second thought above that which is written...No unmarried or childless bishops...
Bless your poor little heart, you have been taught by your magicsteeringthem that the woman is Mary, when the BIBLE teaches that the ‘woman’ is ‘Israel’ and man-child is Messiah. That magicsteeringthem has you completely captive.
Wow. That’s amazing.
“Adelphi” certainly refers back to Jesus. But notice the exhaustive use of the genitive:
THE carpenter, THE son of Mary, (no “the”) brother of Jacob and Jose and Juda and Simon; and are not sisters of him here with us?
As noted, the Greeks who maintain this gospel is not a mere translation but the actual words of Jesus DO read the use of “brother” to mean that the brothers are literally sons of the same father, since had he been speaking in Greek, he could have used the word “anepsos.”
[Catholics hold that the Greek is a translation from Hebrew, in which “brother” would include necessarily cousins. Thus the Greeks arrive at the awkward method of harmonizing the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary with this passage by asserting that they were sons of Joseph by a prior marriage. This is awkward but reasonable, since pious-but-nonbilblical sources attest that Joseph was of advanced age, which would have been odd for a bachelor. Catholics, however, reject this, because you can deduce from the biblical text that Jesus in fact had cousins named Jose, Judah, Simon and Jacob.]
Yet the Greeks firmly reject the notion that Mary was mother of these “brothers” as contrary to the bible in other places. (”The Son of you,” etc.)
When Jesus was 12, and was believed to be among his “kinfolk,” where are his siblings? According to your translation, he has at least six younger siblings.
When Mary goes to live with John, where are his siblings?
When the crowds say that they know his “brothers” and “sisters”
When the family came to get Jesus, to ‘rescue Him from the wandering into religion and away from His occupation’ what did Jesus respond to those who told Him His mother and siblings were outside seeking Him?
If they are connected to requirements for salvation, absolutely...If it is idol worship, absolutely...
Sorry, that's not Mary...And even if it was, that takes about 20 seconds to contemplate...
“When the family came to get Jesus, to ‘rescue Him from the wandering into religion and away from His occupation’”
That’s certainly a unique spin on that encounter.
Well what if it's just a jot or a tittle?
Well there is one grain of truth here, although not as a Roman Catholic would see it: when the Roman Catholic Church throws out the Bible and its truth, this IS what you end up with: CCC 841.
No matter how you slice it, it still comes up the same. Springfield Reformer's demonstration of logic proves it -- 841 DOES teach exactly what it says it teaches, that being that Roman Catholics and Muslims worship the "same, merciful God."
This is the heresy that results from removing the true authority of God-breathed scripture and replacing it with sinful, fallen man.
Hoss
It may differ from what you’ve been taught, but it is not unique by any stretch. Read the texts preceeding the passage and the text following, especially Jesus’s response and His actions after addressing the visit.
To be clear, what seems so unique is the assertion that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s presence was an attempt to divert him from his ministry. It logically follows then that the Blessed Virgin Mary was at that moment being a tool of the devil.
For that matter, show where Mary even was shown being asked by anyone to pray for them or to intercede. At the wedding at Cana, (Jn. 2) no one asked her to intercede, and rather than "yes Mother" when she wanted Him to do something there, the Lord basically reminded her not to presume anything as He was subject to the Father's will.
And rather than Spirit showing Him going to her when she desired to see Him as He was teaching, the Lord equated all who did the will of His Father with being His mother. (Mt. 12:46-50; Lk. 18:19-21)
That leads me to believe you view the Holy Scriptures as incomplete,
Indeed many RCs do, the material sufficiency of Scripture being something RCs can debate, among ma other things, despite the claim of "We have ONE Church, ONE interpretation and ONE truth," but effectively Rome does view the Holy Scriptures as incomplete, as the real basis for so many of her teachings is her amorphous oral tradition.
Somehow i missed this post. Nothing new that has not been refuted. Rome teaching ONE truth, for ALL times is an absurd claim unless you restrict it a few basic teachings, and define unity as largely being on paper, ignoring the multitude of things RCs can disagree on, even as to how many teachings actually require assent of faith, and what assent to others is required and what it means. The greatest unity of RCs is one of error.
Then there is the scope of disagreement that Rome evidences she sanctions, adding to the disparity of belief in the church of Rome with her largely liberal membership, which Scripture requires separation from on that basis alone. (2Cor. 6:14-18)
And as for looking to the magisterium, as one poster wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Meanwhile at the same time you must severely restrict what Catholicism consists of, you define Protestantism so broadly as to include likes of Jim Jones Joel Osteen and so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Do you realize how desperate this sophistry makes RCs look? Yet Rome counts and treats multitudes of souls who would feel very uncomfortable in conservative evangelical churches, such Teddy K, as members in life and in death, thereby teaching the rest how see understands her own laws, and fostering more of what others RCs denigrate as CINOs.
Scripturally the evidence of what one believes consists of what it does and effects, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and for all the Cath fomenting against those who esteem Scripture above the word of men as creating division, the fact is those who most strongly hold to Scripture literally being the accurate word of God are the most unified in basic beliefs versus the overall fruit of Rome. Which evangelical types have historically contended for due to shared assent. Due to such commitment both liberals and Caths count them as their greatest enemy. Quite amazing for a faith hopelessly divided.
Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.â€
Says a member of a church with a beam in its eye, as Rome took the problem of personal error to the most corporate level, giving credence to the interpretation an autocratic man as binding upon all his foolish flock.
For not only does Catholicism itself exist in schisms and sects, but due to what Rome officially teaches and effects, she is the most manifest example of the deformation of the NT church .
Catholic Church Fathers (those early theologians) spent the better part of some 300 years sorting out hundreds of written texts and fragments before they assembled the canonical texts.
You mean scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries over certain books and right into Trent.
This was a full ELEVEN CENTURIES before the heresy of Protestantism
And a full ELEVEN CENTURIES before Rome provided an indisputable canon - after Luther died, despite RC propaganda. And after Catholicism already was divided, and due to looking to men above Scripture, after Catholicism had suffered such declension that "the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution" as Ratzinger affirmed, and required the Reformation as Divine judgment and correction.
Too many RCs have drunken from the Kool-Aid of wishful propaganda such as your spin.
During those centuries several heresies were settled by the Catholic Church.
And adopted or invented by her, including her autocratic authority as being above Scripture.
Does the Bible state it is the sole or final authority of Christianity? NO.
YES, as regards final, that is expressed for the Scriptures are the only substantive transcendent body of comprehensive Divine revelation which are wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:15) having unique power as the assured word of God, (Heb. 4:12) authored by God Himself, which even Rome's papal "infallible" pronouncements are not,
In addition, it is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Scripture is not the sole authority in Christianity for it provides for the church, which as regards government is the final authority in deciding judicial matters, but not on Truth (faith and morals), any more SCOTUS is over the Constitution, or that the OT magisterium was over Scripture, to which it was to look as supreme. Though dissent was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) as uninspired men are not the supreme source of Truth, thus that dissent could be valid must be allowed. And thus the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, as common souls discerned what and who was of God and followed itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Thus the answer to the question "Does the Bible state it is the church is the sole or final authority on Truth is NO. But Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture
That argument against SS (or even just sola prima) is a fallacious , for the reasons describe above. Scripture being the standard, rule, norm for faith refers to it being norma normans (“the rule that rulesâ€), versus magisterial decisions which, as is always the case with the non-inspired authority of men, subject to examination via the word. Which, and not to mere passed-down traditions, the Lord invoked against the devil, (Mt. 4) the Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees, (Mt. 22,23) and established His mission and opened the understanding of the disciples to. (Lk. 24:44,45) Glory to God.
not Scripture as recorded by Matthew 18:17
Which is more wrongly dividing the word, ignorantly or not, as this was actually the NT counterpart to what was ordained in the OT Scriptures, (Dt. 17:8-13) and here actually dealt with personal grievances, not declaring something as binding belief like the bodily assumption of Mary 1800 years after the fable imagines it occurred, and dealt with here by God's grace. And which NT magisterium not more excludes the possibility of valid dissent than that of the OT did, despite the pretensions pf Rome's autocratic cultic premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
This explains the conversion of Dr. A. David Anders. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture,,
Which, like the rest of your often-reiterated but refuted sophistry, is no more a valid argument than before, as your recourse to "the intellectuals must be right" is, to as said before , contrary to "the multitudes of what Scripturally God calls wise souls, which rarely are the intellectual types, and your few examples no more support the premise that such are to be followed because of their intellectualism than Bruce Jenner is because of his athleticism."
It also ignores the multitude of learned who remained Protestant and reproved Rome or left (Luther himself shared the highest scholarly seat), but it was not the learned who heard the Lord Jesus gladly, but the common folk, and the church thus consisted of few who were of that "noble " class, (1Co. 1:26) and consistent with that are the words of Norman Geisler (Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University)
So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. - http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-catholics-are-leaving-church.html
In addition, the converts whom Caths call for testimony tend to represent a different spirit and view of Prots than those who invoke them, and or provide evidence for us, as Newman.
When America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian Rev. Neuhaus
Of infamous (to both conservative evangelicals and RCS alike) "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and preferred to use the term "Roman Catholic" which many RCs takes offense at.
outside of Catholicism from the Moonies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, all brands of Christianity is more than heretical, it is a veritable freak show of so-called Christianity on display..
Actually, Catholicism operates out of he same heretical model as such cults, with their unquestionable supreme leaders/magisterium being supreme, and producing their own heresies while each claiming to the one true church. But Rome has far less unity than they do, a freak show of false doctrines and conservatives and liberals, and with the most liberal Pro churches being those which are closest to Rome.
Give it up. The more you argue for the wishful fantasy of Rome then the more the ragged clothes of the emperor have been exposed.
Jesus rebuked His family and those who expected Him to follow and leave the ministry He was doing which defied the powers of the day. Jesus rebuked Peter, too, when Peter was used by satan to try and divert Him from His mission.
More accurately, Jesus is God in the flesh...A distinction with a difference...
Your religion is missing the difference...God became manifest, revealed in the flesh...The flesh was not God...The flesh was not before Abraham...You may not like the obvious implication but, oh well...It is what it is...
If you really study the words in scripture you’ll know why Mary is not called the mother of God...It’s because she isn’t...
You may remember from our past exchanges that I do really study the words in Scripture. You might want to do so yourself. Because John 1 tells us that the flesh was God.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
It does not say God became manifest in the flesh. It does not say God was revealed in the flesh. It says the Word was God and the Word was made flesh. True, the flesh was not before Abraham, nor was the flesh in the beginning. But the Word was. And the Word was made flesh. You may not like the obvious implication, but this is what Scripture reveals. If you can show me where Scripture shows us that the Word was not made flesh, or that the son of Mary is not God, I would be happy to consider it.
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.