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!
Such a clear reasoning is not digestible for catholics who seek to justify the worship of Mary (even as they deny they worship their Mary with bowing to her statue and image and praying to her for things ONLY God would do). To the catholic mind, the religion of catholiciism worships much more than God The Father Almighty. The catechisms call the catholic Mary things that would insult the Mother of Jesus. I believe the Mother of Jesus is far more humble and righteous than to accept being called a mediatrix.
God created Mary; she could not possibly be His mother.
- God created all of us; He could not possibly become one of us. (But He did.)
God is infinite; Mary is not.
- That’s a given. It was only when the Word became flesh that Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
(The Bible warns us about worshiping the creature instead of the Creator.)
- John Calvin also warned us about this. That’s why he felt that it was not appropriate to call Mary the mother of God. Even so, he recognized the reality of Mary’s maternal relationship to the Second Person of the Trinity.
He used Mary as a vessel/tool to introduce His Son to earth. In that role, she was Jesus’ earthly mother.
- This is why I have trouble understanding how it can be said that Mary is not the mother of God. It was the will of the Father that she conceive of and give birth to His only begotten Son. In that sense, and only in that sense, Mary became the mother of God in the person of Jesus Christ.
In Luke, Mary called God her “Savior”. If she were God’s mother, she would be perfect - God-like. If so, she would not need a “Savior”.
- She conceived of and gave birth to Jesus, who is God. If she can bring Him into the world without being perfect, why can’t she also be His mother?
Going back to the post to which you first responded, do you believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, is God? If so, how can Mary not be the mother of God if Jesus is God? Would that not be denying His divinity?
She hit puberty.
“- God created all of us; He could not possibly become one of us.” I am astonished that you would even try to make that syllogism. It truly displays the mental twist that catholiciism creates in catholic minds.
I'm sure most Protestants love Mary; it's not only here but sometimes they argued a lot about religion on usenet, and you come away with the impression that they don't like her.
We had a Polish lady helping me take care of my aunt. Somewhere she had gotten an Ideals magazine and found a picture of Mary. I was Protestant at the time. Says she, and she didn't get it from me, "Protestants no like Mary". No, says I, "Protestants love Mary, they just don't (and I made a sign with my hands in prayer) to Mary. Any more would have been beyond our ability to communicate.
Technically, Catholics don't worship Mary, but it comes perilously close. In my Marian struggles, I had a problem with Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces; I don't believe the church ever approved that but many wanted it so.
It was explained to me by a deacon. In Catholicity, there are three types of worship, think he used that word. Dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. The latter is reserved only for God. Hyperdulia (did a quick google and different definitions) is dulia to the max. Dulia is veneration. If they call it veneration, I don't consider that worship. There are some saints I honor or venerate but don't pray to them. I used to. But I believe the saints (many, many unknown by name to us) are sentient beings awaiting the Resurrection, not sleeping in the dust. But if we do sleep in the dust, it could be millenia and only feel like a blink of an eye, like it is for most going under anesthia. You wake up, and there is no sense that any time has elapsed, at least with me, but that could vary depending on it it took right, etc. I waked up in the middle of it once. Luckily I was only having a baby so it was painful but nothing like any form of surgery.
I'm glad you clarified that for me. Thank you!
I do not concede a metaphorical only translation in lieu of the same mother. I am of the Hebrew perspective and see Ach/Achim. I also allow the Greek Orthodox view since it arrives in the same kingdom, so to speak. I eschew the modern view prevalent in the 19th Century that these brothers and sisters were physical children of Mary, as well as the logically connected modern view that since Jesus was a rabbi he must have married and had children of his own so as to be accepted, and not scandalized, is his generation which is the same argument your brothers and sisters use on this forum with respect to Mary and Joseph having marital relations.
Look up the definition of Mother in the dictionary. write it down. Look up the definition of GOD in the dictionary. Write it down. In your mind, is Mary in the same class as GOD, in the same genera?
The duplicitous thinking of catholics never ceases to amaze me! And from well educated people!
And one last thing for you to ponder: the Bible tells us that Jesus could not sin because HIS SEED REMAINED WITHIN HIM. Do you imagine that any of Mary's genes were in the Chromosomes of Jesus? Answer that one and you may, just may, see why your continued drumming of this broken syllogism is ridiculous.
Not now. I've been tempted to check out the new Antiochan church we have here, but having been Catholic and taken it seriously, I can't bring myself to try any more versions of Christianity. It doesn't feel right, and the Protestants have mostly gone into apostasy. The so-called non-denominational don't seem to have anything appealing; it's their interpretation of scripture, and I wouldn't get to have a say. The ones I consider cults or cult-like. Never. I loved the liturgy and music in the Catholic church.
I'm familiar with that passage; it validates the belief in a Triune God. I don't know if it convinced the disciples he was the Messiah. But I've used that scripture to remonstrate with people like my sister that Jesus is the only way to the Father. We don't talk about religion any more.
Jesus said his sheep would know His voice. If I heard a voice, I couldn't be sure whose it was. If I am fortunate enough to make it to the heavenly realm, I would expect a beautiful being of light but even then I could be deceived because Satan can appear as an angel of light.
Which came first, GOD or Mary? Can the one who comes second give rise the one Who gave rise to the second?
Perhaps you agree then that the god of catholiciism and the god of islam are the same god? Can you tell us that is a trivial matter we should ignore?
Both religions profess to follow the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but, the Catholic Church, like all other Christian churches, is not beheading Christians. Do they say they follow the same God? Yes. They sure don’t act like it. If you think it is more important that we fight each other than to defend Christendom together have at it, but know we are arguing ourselves to death.
Layering false premises does not make a valid premise. When you insist we are fighting each other, well, I for one am fighting demonic deceptions. As a catholic, perhaps you are uncomfortable of such a campaign ... and the potential to expose heresies and blasphemies in catholiciism?
Now your account of sinless is not foreign to me, and I don't remember exactly where I read about it. Essentially it was Jesus had to be born in a sin-free person. Starting with David who committed adultery and was charged by a prophet with the murder of Uriah, it took 14 generations for a pure enough vessel for Jesus. And the generations are traced two different ways (which is common in genealogy). Maybe one of the lines were from Joseph. Naturally people supposed Joseph was the biological father because it was too personal to blab about, and Joseph had difficulty over Mary's pregnancy as it was until the angel told him what to do in the dream.
Then you mention people get their spiritual nature from their fathers. That could be true; I come from a somewhat moral but atheist lineage, so faith has always been more difficult for me. At least I have some.
But occultists believe that the oldest daughter gets a tendency to things like what they used to call "second sight" or psychic abilities. I tried to cleanse myself of all of that through prayer but don't know if I succeeded. I met a woman on youtube, she was an ex-patriate in France, had a very sad and difficult family background, and then didn't see any of her videos (she did simple videos of her excursions around Paris and their summer vacations. Anyway, I went looking for her and saw on another channel she had that she had died. May she rest in peace. I hope her husband stuck around long enough to give her a proper burial; I think she talked about making arrangements for that, too.
Anyway, toward the end, she explained that she was Albanian mixed with something and had this ability to read runes or something and made a little money doing readings which her clients, well they wouldn't have come to her if they didn't expect or get something from it. She further explained that her mother and her grandmother before her had the same ability.
I had my own battle trying to cleanse myself of limited occult experimentation so it almost made my blood run cold to hear her tell of it. It *could* indicate or *might* indicate that we can pick up what the bible calls "familial spirits" from our mothers. My mother was anti-Catholic. That would explain a few things but I do not consider myself anti-Catholic, just have difficulty with some things.
So if it is as you say, I don't have a problem with it. I believed fervently in St. Bernadette's story; I'm not 100% convinced she hadn't heard the term discussed somewhere but no conscious memory of it. But she would have had no idea what it meant.
But to sum up, I think we are close to being on the same page about hereditary purity, or maybe not. I will have to think some more about your explanation of Adam; I figured both were responsible with free will to eat or not, but Eve got blamed for it worse, of course. Anyway, for Noah and Abraham to have been righteous in their generations, there would have been a purity that no others possessed. In fact it could have something to do with their genetic code which didn't have traces of those ancient beings, the Nephilim who saw that "the daughters of men were fair" and "came down and mated with them" and created hybrids or polluted the race.
Thank heaven you seem to literally believe in Adam. Jesus obviously did, too. I do, too, but it is so difficult now with modern science and my dad didn't make me but wanting to please him paying for my education, I took a course in anthropology. We learned about the different hominids, other things that conflicted with my faith. It was a Catholic college. I passed but even the memory of that course makes me feel a little desolate. And I don't have the answers to reconcile it all.
Now I will brazenly say one more thing. I don't think I ever had a problem about Mary's purity. Up the board, there was discussion of Mary saying she needed a Savior. True, God ordained that it be so. Then we read that all have sinned and come short of the law. I don't want to go there; one of the church fathers felt Mary would have sinned at least venially, vainglory about her place in Heaves, but I never saw it that way.
But it hasn't been mentioned that Joseph and Mary made the sin offering after so many days after Jesus' birth. Since I didn't have anyone to ask, I just figured that she wasn't guilty of any sin but followed the Hebrew tradition as an act of humility and because the world wasn't ready to know otherwise and would have had a huge problem if she failed to present herself.
That was an intelligent and thoughtful post, and I fear I didn't do it justice. Thank you for your contribution. It will give me more to think about. I may have gone off the rails about the hybrid people. They would have been destroyed in the flood anyway, but sinful beings always crop up again; but I have to cling to my belief that nothing happens but what God allows it for His purposes.
Lee, I empathize with your concern, but this is a battle with multiple fronts. Yes, there is a geopolitical dimension, and we need to act together to repel the advances of Islam.
But there is also a spiritual front. We do not wrestle here against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers of darkness. Not trying to be “spooky.” It’s just true. The key weapon in that fight is a clear messaging of the Gospel according to God’s word. If we cede that front, we would be in disobedience to Christ.
So yes, we should minimize our fighting to the extent possible. We should season all our conversations here with grace and generosity. But we are also under a command to contend for the faith. We cannot withdraw from presenting the Gospel at every reasonable opportunity. It’s not an option.
Yes, I know both sides here feel they are the one contending for the true faith. That’s just one of those awkward inconsistencies we will have to put up with until the end of this age. Jesus will sort it all out.
Meanwhile, as we wait for that day, there is no harm in bending over backwards to make these discussions as pleasant and useful as possible for everyone involved. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.
Peace,
SR
Well?
Your effort to raise comity is interesting, especially as we read post after post of catholic apologists telling us non-catholics that we are doomed without the catholic church endorsement on our spirits. We are told that we cannot be born from above UNTIL we follow the catholic sacramental trail and follow the dogma of catholiciism. I don’t notice you making this same plea with these catholic ‘bullies’; why is that?
I acknowledge that the Catholic church claimes to be the real Christian church. I believe that. But our church teaches that, While we are the most right, others are close and not to be condemned out right. I am not given the authority to call you unChristian. I wouldn’t if I could. We agree on the basics of the faith. Christ is lord an savior. We are all under attack. Let us argue our differences once Christendom is safe.
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.