A
adrift
Guest
Thank you I will check it out.
- Status
R
Radical
Guest
if you go to this site you will see this assessment: I consider the fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments to be completely suspect as the alleged words of Papias…and as far as I know, that is about where it stands…Holmes’ work (the one I linked) doesn’t include the fragment. If you google “papias fragments Lexicographer” you’ll probably come across the mention of an 11th century Papias
K
kwortham
Guest
Do you question a book such as Hebrews in such a manner? Who wrote it? Is it truthful?
Of course it was necessary, for protestant beliefs, that the late 19th century protestant editors of the 10 volume Ante-Nicene Fathers American Edition threw in doubt about the fragment in a footnote. These “scholars” do so in many prefaces and footnotes throughout the 38 volume set of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Maybe you can be enlightened by scripture, since protestants seem obsessed with the idea that Joseph must have consummated marriage with Mary:
Luke 1:38 “38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.”
Mary in this verse gave herself to God and to His purpose. She became wed to God and God did consummate the marriage.
OK, are we supposed to believe that Joseph bedded his Heavenly Father’s bride? If only we had an Apostle that could shed some light on this subject!
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NT gospel scripture is full of scoffers towards Jesus:
Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding, and the rulers with them derided him, saying: He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the elect of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying: If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38 And there was also a superscription written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Of course, Elizabeth was nursing a baby in her old age and this gave witness to her miracle. What of Mary? What would be the witness to her miracle? Where were the scoffers in relation to her?
The ultimate mockery of Mary and of Christ’s birth would have been a verse that says, “Here comes the ‘virgin’ Mary and her fourteen children!” Why were there no scoffers available to render the ultimate ridicule? According to protestant theology, a perfect opportunity was missed by Christ’s detractors.
K
kwortham
Guest
What 11th century Papias? If this 11th century Papias existed, then point us to his history. The protestant editors didn’t like what was said. Hence, they appeal to a quote from another protestant that suggests that it was another author (Papias) that wrote this a thousand years after the fact. We can cast doubts like this all day long about numerous canonical books.
Who was the author of Hebrews? That’s right! It was an 11th century disciple of Paul. It is just so simple to dispense with inconvenient things that one does not wish to believe.
S
saveusfromhell
Guest
Is it any wonder our lady appeared at fatima with the request for the first five saturdays.
google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosary-center.org%2Ffirstsat.htm&ei=iWvfULDhKYu3hAf6hoDgBA&usg=AFQjCNH-iRrz5ApOB2M56ysFJ5fMgpVEWA&sig2=rLTg9Jf-6alDgHa3iFFzEA
google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosary-center.org%2Ffirstsat.htm&ei=iWvfULDhKYu3hAf6hoDgBA&usg=AFQjCNH-iRrz5ApOB2M56ysFJ5fMgpVEWA&sig2=rLTg9Jf-6alDgHa3iFFzEA
R
Radical
Guest
the Papias whose work was read by Lightfoot before he wrote:
About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century. 2
footnote #2 reads:
2 I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the result in the first edition of my Galatians, p. 459 sq (1865). About the same time Dr Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and announced it in the second edition of his History of the Canon
the above is from ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED SUPERNATURAL RELIGION p 211…it can be found online.
apparently it isn’t as easy as you need it to be in order to avoid embarassment
N
Nicea325
Guest
If you dropped the repeated insults and the arrogance you constantly display and know it all attitud,perhaps you would be taken a lot more serious. You are not the voice of 2000 years Radical. You have been wrong countless of times and rebuked and yet refuse to acknowledge it. Precisely why Protestanism is founded on self-centeredness,not Christ-centered.the Papias whose work was read by Lightfoot before he wrote:
About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century. 2
footnote #2 reads:
2 I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the result in the first edition of my Galatians, p. 459 sq (1865). About the same time Dr Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and announced it in the second edition of his History of the Canon
the above is from ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED SUPERNATURAL RELIGION p 211…it can be found online.
apparently it isn’t as easy as you need it to be in order to avoid embarassment
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Yes, that Mary never intended to have children by having conjugal relations with her husband and remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus does lend more credibility to our belief in Christ’s divinity and the incarnation. Luke does typify Mary as the ark of the Covenant by referring to the second Book of Samuel, which would be inconsistent of him if he knew Mary had other children with Joseph. Mary’s womb was a type of sacred sanctuary or personal dwelling place for God - the incarnation being a form of theophany, so it is hard for us to imagine that common mortals tainted with the stain of original sin could inhabit God’s sacred dwelling place as well. All Jews, except the high priests, were forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies in the temple for fear of desecrating God’s personal sanctuary. The high priests even were forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives during the time they served there so as to be pure and elevated above what is carnal because of God’s proximity. A Protestant might argue that God condescended to dwell among us on earth and mingle with sinners, but the world isn’t God’s personal sacred dwelling place removed from the profane. We read in Isaiah 66:1 that the earth is his “footstool” - not his “home” or “resting place”, since his “throne is in heaven”. Uzziah tried to keep the ark from toppling over, and although his intention was good, the Lord slew him for having touched it. Joseph was a devout Jew and a God-fearing man, so I doubt he would have dared touch Mary for the sake of procreation. More important, he must have been very sensitive about God’s holiness and considered the ark of the covenant Judaism’s most holy relic like all devout Jews had.Yes. And it helps us provide better apologia for the Divinity of Christ.
Imagine a Muslim, contemplating Christianity, who is in discussion with, say, a Non-Catholic Christan.
M: You believe that Jesus was Divine?
NCC: Yes! He was God!
M: Yet you believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters from the womb of Mary?
NCC: Yes. What does that have to do with Christ’s Divinity?
M: Well, I just have a hard time believing that this Jesus could have been God Incarnate if the womb that contained him later also held mere human creatures. ** It’s like your OT Ark of the Covenant, which held the Holy of Holies, also later carrying around some desert stones. If the Ark also carried non-holy things, it makes it quite suspect that it actually carried something Holy.**
NCC: Talk to a Catholic, then! He might be able to convince you better about Christ’s Divinity
PAX
R
Radical
Guest
thank-you for taking the time to provide your version of reality…I’ll file it away with all the other treasures from your keyboard.
P
PRmerger
Guest
R
Radical
Guest
are you referring to the Apostle Paul’s use of sarcasm in his epistles?..he does indeed say that he is weak…not bad company
N
Nicea325
Guest
Oh you are very welcome. Just glad to know I do not accept or believe your perverted version of reality…
Yes…file it away with all my other treasures…glad to know you consider it treasures-thank you.
And yes…Protestanism is self-centered (ALL human founders)…so get over it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Can you give an example of Pauline sarcasm?are you referring to the Apostle Paul’s use of sarcasm in his epistles?..he does indeed say that he is weak…not bad company
K
kwortham
Guest
Good job! You caught me holding that point back.Luke does typify Mary as the ark of the Covenant by referring to the second Book of Samuel, which would be inconsistent of him if he knew Mary had other children with Joseph. Mary’s womb was a type of sacred sanctuary or personal dwelling place for God - the incarnation being a form of theophany, so it is hard for us to imagine that common mortals tainted with the stain of original sin could inhabit God’s sacred dwelling place as well.
PAX
You know this, but I ask the following for those lurking. What happened to those that touched the Ark of the Old Covenant? Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, what would have happened if someone had sexually touched this ark?
K
kwortham
Guest
To the contrary, they proved nothing. They only managed to delude themselves with this explanation before their deaths. Regardless, we do not require a perfectly intact 1900 year old parchment guaranteed to be written by Papias to know that Mary is eternally virgin. If the protestant editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers American Edition believed that this was a 11th century fabrication, then why did they include it in a list of fragments attributed to Papias who lived from 70 to 155 A.D.? Why didn’t they leave it out, if they really doubted it?the Papias whose work was read by Lightfoot before he wrote:
About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century. 2
footnote #2 reads:
2 I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the result in the first edition of my Galatians, p. 459 sq (1865). About the same time Dr Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and announced it in the second edition of his History of the Canon
the above is from ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED SUPERNATURAL RELIGION p 211…it can be found online.
apparently it isn’t as easy as you need it to be in order to avoid embarassment
I have placed notes in front of the protestant prefaces (Introductory Notes) in all 38 volumes of my Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers stating that the protestant commentators are going to tell you that the ancient writer did not say what the ancient writer goes on to say. In the case of Papias they used a footnote to give themselves “an out,” even though they go on to attribute it to the 1st century Papias.
T
tabycat
Guest
I wonder how long we have to wait for that example (if ever) ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think perhaps a request will be made to start another thread.I wonder how long we have to wait for that example (if ever) ?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Return to the topic of the OP an stay there.
P
panevino
Guest
Does anyone know who taught/ or at least preceeded tertullian?
And also who tertullian may of taught? Who we have writings of?
And also who tertullian may of taught? Who we have writings of?
P
panevino
Guest
Does anyone know who taught/ or at least preceeded tertullian?
And also who tertullian may of taught? Who we have writings of?
And also who tertullian may of taught? Who we have writings of?
- Status