I boasted of nothing, lady. I made a statement of fact relevant to the point I was addressing and I still have not seen any evidence of the assertion you made that I have never heard.
scripture at me and point your hypocritcal finger at me, making judgements. You made several assertions and I am still waiting for evidence.
I don't give a stale donut what you believe. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You can paint yourself blue and howl at the moon for all I care. BUT when you come into my house, criticizing my faith and beliefs, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, attacking the sheep, scattering the flock, killing the lambs, my job is to show false teachings for exactly what it is. And that is what I have done and will do with evidence. And as yet I have not seen one single shred of verifiable evidence for you for the false assertions and accusation you have made.
" PAPIAS, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phyrgia. He was born probably between 70 and 75 A.D., and died, perhaps, A.D. 163. No fact save his episcopacy is definitely known about him,
?" We could and should stop right here, everything following is based on second and third hand information that cannot be verified.
yet he is of great interest from his relation to the apostolic age. he was, according toIrenæus (Adv. Hær., v. 33, 4), "a hearer" of John the apostle, "a companion of Polycarp," "an ancient man," i.e.,
a nian [?] of the primitive days of Christianity. By "John," Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 39) understands the presbyter, not the apostle, of that name, and declares that Papias had no personal acquaintance with any apostles. Papias, who was certainly acquainted with the present New Testament, wrote in Greek, about A.D. 130, An Interpretation of the Sayings of the Lord, in five books. His work appears to have been a collection of the words and works of the Master and his disciples, with explanatory matter derived from oral testimony.
It has entirely [size=+1]perished[/size], with the exception of a few small fragments preserved by Irenæus and Eusebius. The "fragments" in later writers are somewhat dubious. The first passage Eusebius quotes (l.c.) is from the preface of Papias' work, as follows: - [
Note, Eusebius was excommunicated by the synod held at Antioch in January of 325 for heresy, being an Arian, i.e. JW. He is an impeccable source, yeah right!]
["But I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations, also, for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory as I have received it from the elders, anti have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth by my testimony. For I have never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the truth; neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But, if I met with any one who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord. For I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving."] [
And there is something wrong with this?]
Besides quoting this passage,
Eusebius speaks of Papias [
Primary source? This is third hand.] stories of the daughters of Philip, who raised one from the dead, and of Justus, surnamed Barnabas, who drank poison with impunity (
probably told by Papias in illustration of Mark xvi. 18), of Papias strange accounts of the Lords parables and doctrinal sayings, which were "rather too fabulous," and of his recital concerning a woman accused of many sins,
apparently an allusion [
Apparently? 3d hand Speculation] to the story of the woman taken in adultery, now found inserted in the textus receptus of Johns Gospel (viii. 1 sqq.). [
And according to all modern scholarship this is exactly where it appears and belongs. See e.g., ISV, NIV, NASB, NET, WEB, ASV, EMTV, and NA27.]
But of more account is the other verbal quotation from Papias which Eusebius gives (l.c.):-
[" And John the presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lords discourses. Wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as lie has recorded them; for lie was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts. . . . Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able."] [
And there is something wrong with this?]
Eusebius mentions Papias use of 1 John, 1 Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews; the first two,
probably, with the intention [
3d hand speculation] of showing that only these Epistles were rightly attributable to John and Peter. But out of the omission to speak in any way of the third and fourth Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, nothing can be made; for the failure to speak lies to the charge of Eusebius, not of Papias; and the silence arose merely front Eusebius desire to quote a few characteristic things front Papias. The attempt to prove from this silence that Papias was ignorant of the other books is vain.
Besides the quotations already given, there are several fragments of Papias of interest. [See Routh, Reliquæ sacræ, vol. i., Eng. traits., in The Apostolical Fathers, Ante-Nicene Library, vol. i. pp. 441448.] Thus in the Scltolia of Maximnus Confessor on Dionysius the Areopagites De cælesti hierarchia (c. 2, p. 32), it is stated, on the authority of Papias in the first book of his Interpretation, "The early Christian called those children who practised guilelessness toward God." [
??????] Georgius Hamartolos (ninth century) [
Who?] cites in his Chronicle the second book of Papias as authority for the incredible statement that John, the brother of James, was killed by the Jews at Ephesus. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., v. 33, 3), quotes the fourth book of Papias as authority for our Lords saying:-
["The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and in every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes; and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes (i.e., two hundred and twenty-five English gallons). And when any one of the saints shall lay bold of a cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better cluster: take me. Bless the Lord through me. In like manner lie said that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples and seeds and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and he in perfect subjection to man."] [
A second quote from a supposed writing that no longer exists, and may or may not be written by Papias.]
Eusebius apparently [
apparently? Also remember Eusebius was a Arian] refers to this passage (Hist. Eccl., iii. 39) in proof that Papias interpreted the future millennium as a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth, and further says that Papias misunderstood the apostolic mystical narrations.
Eusebius, moreover, charges Papias with leading Irenæus and most of the ecclesiastical writers to chiliastic notions. [
Where and does Eusebius substantiate it?] Another quotation from the fourth book in cumenius [
Who is Ecuminius, can it be verified? And remember everything written by Papias no longer exists.] relates to the last sickness of Judas the apostate, in flat contradiction to the New-Testament account, - a proof that Papias credulously rested upon lying tradition, [
a second hand quote that cannot be verified is proof of absolutely nothing!] not that he was ignorant of Matthew and the Acts. Other quotations show his preference for typico-allegorizing exposition. A note in a Vatican Vulgate manuscript of the ninth century speaks of Papias as the amanuensis of John. Eusebius appears to vacillate in his judgment of Papias; for whereas in iii. 36 he calls him "a man most learned in all things, and well acquainted with the Scriptures" in iii.39 he says he had "a small mind" [referring to his allegorizing tendency]. The former statement lacks satisfactory manuscript support, and is probably an interpolation.
[<<<First he says this, then contradicts himself by saying this>>>] [SIZE=+1]
Not enough of Papias is left upon which to form an independent judgment [except that he was pious, credulous, and industrious.[/SIZE]
["The work of Papias was extant in the time of Jerome. Perhaps it may yet he recovered; for some
work with the name of Papias is mentioned thrice (234, 267, 556) in the catalogue of the Library of the Benedictine Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, contained in a Cottonian manuscript, written in the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century (E. Edwards, Memoirs of Libraries, London, 1859, vol. i. pp. 122-235); and according to Menard, the words I found the book of Papias on the Words of the Lord are contained in an inventory of the property of the church at Nismes, prepared about 1218."DONALDSON, pp.401,402.] "
Copied from:
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk
The bold faced type and the underlining are mine.
seems to support your assumptions and presuppositions and you blew off everything else.
I don't care what you doubt, what can you provide credible evidence for? You put on your sheep suit, come into my house and attack the Bible making wild allegations which you have yet to prove. I keep asking for evidence, substantiation, documentation, all I get are the same unsupported assertions and allegations over and over.
OTOH I posted several posts, including an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia showing just how the Jews, remember them they actually spoke Hebrew, interpreted the scriptures on sheol, gehinnom, and hades. And the story of Lazarus and the rich man does not come from Greek mythology, or unscriptural Jewish beliefs. I also posted proof that the Jewish scholars translated sheol as hades, in the Septuagint, 250 b.c.. Do you suppose they were "
And as I said ALL the manuscript evidence and ECF supports Luke 16:19-31. I am not aware of any manuscript that lacks it. But when folks like you come along and reinterpret scripture you have to throw out the scripture that you can't make fit your false doctrines. All you are doing is twisting and corrupting scripture to make it fit your assumptions and presuppositions.
about related topics such as: 
