Haran

I told you, Carr!!! Look back at the beginning of this thread... According to your OP, you sent him the "fragments" only:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

By using the "fragments" of Papias, you made yourself look more biased and unwilling to listen. I hope it was an accident...

I told you in the other thread that what you presented was not all of Papias. The second link on Peter's site is the same one that I have always linked to for Papias and the one I linked to in the other thread for you to read (i.e. "External Evidence: Papias"):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

How did you word your second email to him, anyway??

Even so, the guy could have a better attitude. He probably would have had a better attitude if he knew his emails were getting posted to a forum for skeptics with some Christians present as well...

Why do you feel the necessity to color Christians bad, Steven?

Steven Carr

By using what Papias wrote , I made myself look bad????

Is this entirely serious?

And what, pray be the difference?

Is there more of what Papias wrote in the second link?



There is , of course, Christians of centuries later, telling us what Papias wote. Sometimes 1500 years later. So what?

I quoted the recoverable fragments of what Papias wrote. not 5th century Christian propaganda , of dubious provenance.

Haran thinks I should quote :-
'Catena of the Greek Fathers on John (ed. B. Corder, Antwerp, 1630):'

Why? (1630!) Why not quote what Papias is supposed to have written?

Baffling, that Haran castigates me for using primary texts and not secondary texts.

But, I shall quote the very web page Haran wants me to, the second link on Peter Kirby's page

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm

'Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows:....'

Even Haran's own favoured web page, the one he insists on me quoting, says Papias was not a listener of the Holy Apostles......

Steven Carr

HARAN
Even so, the guy could have a better attitude. He probably would have had a better attitude if he knew his emails were getting posted to a forum for skeptics with some Christians present as well...

CARR
I did inform him that I had sent an open letter, and the reply would be published on http://www.infidels.org/

Haran

Steven, I "castigate" you for not presenting the whole picture and for twisting things in word games.

And this is as interpreted by Eusebius. Note Eusebius opines that Papias "in no way presents himself to have been". Another might have read the same passage or even Papias' entire work and not come to the same conclusion, so to discount later church fathers as necessarily propaganda is a distortion at best.

I am not trying to defend Montgomery's position, Steven, so stop acting as if I am. He can defend his position himself if he pleases. I'm just trying to get you to present the whole picture.

Again, why do you feel the necessity to color Christians bad, Steven? I have noted that you have not always placed the most reputable and knowledgeable information on your own website. Shall I call you a liar?

Steven Carr

I quoted the VERY web page Haran castigated me for not quoting!


But is from Eusebius that we get these fragments, and he quotes the very words of Papias to support his contention that the presbyter John was not an apostle, and that Papias could only get second-hand information about the apostles.

The very person who gives us Papias's words, in the very web page Haran wanted me to quote gives Papias's own words, which refute Haran's claim!

And Haran STILL wants me to quote secondary, later texts, instead of what Papias wrote.

I quoted what Papias wrote, and Haran says that is 'word games'.

I quoted the authority, Montgomery turned to , F.F.Bruce, who wrote ''Some difficulties and inconsistencies in statements made by writers of the early Christian centuries may be due to a confusion of the two Johns; but it is highly unlikely that Irenaeus was guilty of such a confusion, and thought that his master Polycarp was speaking of the apostle when in fact he was speaking of the elder.'

So Haran's own favoured web page, and Montgomery's own source contradict their positions.


But I shall continue to quote what Haran has asked me to quote, from his favoured web page

PAPIAS
But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice.

EUSEBIUS
It is also worth calling attention here to his listing the name of John twice, as he includes the first John with Peter and James and Matthew and the remaining apostles, clearly indicating the evangelist, but the other John, with separate wording, he places among the others outside the number of the apostles, and putting Aristion before him, he clearly calls him a presbyter;


CARR
Can Haran follow Eusebius's reasoning here? Papias names John twice, with separate wording, and makes a distinction between the two?

Here is another part of what Haran wants me to quote

'Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.):'

'Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis, hearer of John the theologian, and colleage of Polycarp, wrote five volumes on the Lord's reports.


Within which, making an enumeration of the apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew to the disciples of the Lord he listed Aristion and another John, whom he called a presbyter.
So some suppose that of <this> John are the two short and catholic epistles, which are circulated from the name of John, on account of the early persons' approval of the first alone.

And some who are misled consider the revelation to be his. And Papias was mistaken about the millennium, and due to him Irenaeus too.

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologue and James his brother were killed by Jews.

---------------------
Does Haran accept that John the theologian was killed by Jews and that this murdered person was John the Evangelist? Or was John the Theologian a different person?

NB. Even Haran's own source says clearly 'ANOTHER JOHN, who was called a presbyter.'

Note that there are no direct quotes of Papias in this 5th century work, so at last I can obey Haran's instructions to stop playing word games by quoting primary texts.

Haran

Carr, you are wrong, inflammatory, and not worthy of response because no one but you ever gets the last word. I do not have the time for this. You take a person's position, twist it, reword it, and do everything you can to make yourself look good while seemingly making every attempt to annoy the other person.

Whatever, believe as absurdly as you like.... I have no time for debating tricks. I doubt you will ever get the answers you seek, but that's probably because you're not truthfully looking for answers. You're just looking for anything that can be twisted in your favor. I'm sure you'll twist this into some sort of dumb victory for yourself. Have a great celebration and never forget that Christians are all liars. I simply have no more time for this junk... There are many others willing to debate and learn in a more reasonable fasion.

Steven Carr

Amazing! I quoted the web site Haran scolded me into quoting!

And this is 'twisting it'. I quote the exact words on the web site he wants me to quote, and this is 'rewording it'.

And Haran quotes nothing which supports his position in this thread, Nothing except insult after insult after insult.... No substantive contribution at all, while I quote and quote and point out that people say there are two Johns, and that one Christian went as far as to say that there was a 'John the Theologian' who was killed by the Jews. This was NOT the John the Evangelist who was never martyred.

I attempt to bring up what people say, bring up substantive issues, and I am met by a barrage of insult after every post.


Can the moderators do nothing about Haran's insults?

Doctor X

Perchance both can just take a break from it for now? It seems emotions are a bit raw.

--J.D.

Celsus

I agree with Doctor X. This thread is locked until both Steven and Haran cool it.

Joel