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!
He plainly rebuked Peter, calling him “you Satan.” (This is one reason why he only tells Peter he WILL receive authority.) But there is no mention whatsoever of him rebuking his Mom. And that’s one ENORMOUS sin you’re saying he’s accusing her of; Peter was called “Satan” only for suggesting he didn’t need to die, but you have his mother trying to dissuade him from his public ministry, contra John 2 in which his mother PROMPTS his public ministry.
“Jesus! The people have no wine!” She says.
He tests her, “So, woman? What business is that of mine?”
“Just do whatever he tells you,” she instructs the stewards, completely disregarding the possibility that he wouldn’t do something.
I have weighed your responses and found them wanting. Being unable, or unwilling, to testify of the provenance of your faith community after claiming it originated with John the Baptist indicates to me the claim was frivolous, false, and not to be taken seriously.
And the Roman Catholic church was named the Roman Catholic church since e beginning?
Why are you holding others to standards the Catholc church can’t even meet?
Classic.
You would do well to read carefully the discourse Jesus gave in John 14, regarding all Phillip could see of the Father was what Phillip saw in Jesus. I'll explain that passage to you after you read it. There is a subtle Physics lesson in it.
I’m not accusing Mary or His brothers of sin. They may have planned an intervention when they were worried that he was doing too much opposition to the powers that were, of the Sanhedrin. But if their desire to do that intervention was not out of their love and worry over His behavior, then whom would you suppose would want Him to stop it?
Pope Paul. :)
CCC 841 does not take into account the original languages.
It is clear to me after reading the Bible and the Qur’an, that Allah is NOT YHWH. No where in the Qur’an does their god have a name other than Allah.
So Muslims do not worship the Hebrew and Christian Almighty God YHWH.
I have reflected on John 14 many times. What Jesus says in this chapter is beyond the limitations of my understanding of Physics. I look forward to receiving your explanation.
You might not intend to be accusing them of sin, but the action you are accusing them of is a most grave sin. Especially since the Blessed Virgin Mary knew EXACTLY who Jesus was, the Messiah, the redeemer of Israel. Go read Luke 1:46-55
Consider the rebuke Jesus gave Peter, for a much lesser version of the same sin, made with much less foreknowledge: Get behind me, Satan.
And let's not forget "hilarious" also...
;D
Hoss
You can believe whatever you feel your magicsteeringthem tells you to believe. Not my problem. But the family showed up to do an intervention is the take on the scene and the preceding passages and following passages. Their motivation did not have to be generated by satan, nor can you even guess what was going through His Mother’s mind or that of His siblings, when they came to the place and asked to speak with Him. People think of reasons to intervene that may be based in a mistaken notion but not void of love for the one with whom they want to do an intervention. That you have chosen to see it the worst way is quite telling of your perhaps misplaced motives.
BTW, was His reply, when told of the family being outside asking for Him, a rebuke, albeit a soft one? I would say it was. How about you?
But the body/flesh of Jesus was not there in the beginning, with God and wasn't God...
“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)
The Word was made flesh (in Jesus Christ)...The Word was made a lot of things...The Word was made into a pillar...The Word was made into a wrestler...The Word was made into Ram, and a sheep...Jesus the Word was made manifest in many different things...And finally, he was made manifest in human flesh...
1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
This very Jesus, with the body of flesh and blood is the same Jesus who was alive and well before the foundation of the world, sans the body...Same one...And Mary wasn't his mother...
Act_2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Jesus' soul left his flesh body...
Luk_23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
Jesus spirit up and left his flesh body...
The only element of those three entities that have any connection to Mary is that body/flesh...Is that dead lifeless body God???
Bible tells us that when we die we go to heaven...Catholics teach that heaven and purgatory are not places but a state of mind...But I have to ask, where is that mind??? Is it still in the dead body??? Somewhere there are some minds floating around...
Any way, the bible is clear enough to me for me to know that when you die, you soul and spirit leave your flesh...Your flesh rots or is burned up in cremation...
For the born again Christian, the real you is the soul...The spirit provides the life and the body is just the shell that we use to get around in...
Same with Jesus...His body/flesh was just a shell for God to get around in and to let the disciples know when God was in their presence...
When Jesus ascended he put that 'glorified' body back on like a suit and headed north...So is it the flesh of Jesus that is God or the other elements which Mary had no part in creating???
You are not alone.
It’s really laughable the sad responses.
You cannot say that God calls people of 1001 different believers to be pastors in as much Protestant and Episcopalian denominations. This would include married homosexual pastors and “bishops†as well as you very well know. To say that there are several “truths†is a contradiction of God. God Is Truth, He is One Truth, and it’s the ONE-truth mandate that was given to Peter and his successors to go forth and teach this ONE truth through ONE Church. The Catholic Church existed BEFORE the Bible. The books in the Bible were assembled in AD 384, by the Catholic Church and through Divine inspiration. That inspiration did not vanish a full 11 centuries later with the plague of Protestantism. If you doubt, that Divine inspiration guided the Church that selected the books in the Bible and assembled them in the order we find them, then you have little choice but to toss out the Bible. The books in the Bible did not drop from the skies.
For nearly four centuries, they were checked for their accuracy as the Word of God by checking and cross fact-checking the oral tradition. That received oral tradition is what the Church uses. Outside the Catholic Church there is no central Credo. Rather, you find a flotsam and jetsam of unadulterated rubbish from the David Koresh and Jim Joes and Joel Osteens of this world right down to your illiterate corner street pastor who spouts off his or her own interpretation to mainly low-information high school dropouts.
This is why you will find a towering intellectual tradition only in the Catholic Church and why even the brightest theologians and pastors of the on-Catholic Christian movement have converted to Catholicism. All this cutting-and-pasting form third-rate blogs and random hurling of fragmentary scriptural quotes is beyond sophomoric. It is, as students of theology have called it, useless garbage.
Just check out the galaxy of converts to the Catholic Faith over different times, places, and faiths, including previous atheists and agnostics.
If you really, really, want to know why serious converts convert to Catholic try reading this:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/about/why-im-catholic/
This is why you will find a towering intellectual tradition only in the Catholic Church...
Oh, that makes sense.
Is the NT sufficient to find and understand God’s plan of salvation for mankind? If so, why did the apostles omit such an important doctrine of salvation as “without Mary’s intercession their is no salvation”?
Perhaps you could email the above to one of those former protestant now Catholic intellectuals. I have asked this question more than 10 times and all I hear about is David Koresh and a host of other cult leaders.
Meaning you keep changing the subject.
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.