Talk:Papias of Hierapolis

message: Why has someone posted the image of St. Nektarios on the page dedicated to Papias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A9A:11FE:D533:869:963B:DB83 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This text has been suppressed in the entry. Let it stand here temporarily as a reminder of this undiscussed issue concerning Papias' apostolic inspiration: "Irenaeus was doubtless conflating the presbyter John, Papias' source, with the apostle John and with the author of the Gospel of John. If he was not, his subsequent interpreters certainly have confused these Johns." --Wetman 10:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that whole topic is a can of worms.  No matter how that issue is discussed, the word "doubtless" ought not be a part of it -- even for Irenaeus's views. User:Stephen C. Carlson 10:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no reason to assume, by inductive logic, that anyone other than John wrote the gospel. Why would "some" second century writers know more about the account than what the gospel itself shows? John did not refer to himself (in fact he was not reffed to by name at all in the Gospel of John) in the gospel as a sign of humility. This is also a unique first-person writing form, and might as well have been a finger print..  --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: John the Apostle or "John the Presbyter"

message: Sorry Ari, I can not accept conservative christian rewriting of history. Thomas is mentioned by Papias himself.  Eugnostos (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it seems all you accept is rewriting history. If you wish to argue that Papias mentions Thomas please find a source that states it. So, where does Papias mention Thomas so we can move on? --Ari (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: A quick search of Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1 confirmed what I said. A Thomas is only mentioned once, and it has nothing to do with a gospel of Thomas. The fragment states "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things﻿ Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice"" --Ari (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eugnostos, the Gospel of Thomas probably wasn't even written by Papias' time. Even if it did exist: why would Papias, a millennialist Christian, quote from something that shows his perceived future king as an abuser of power, and a cruel murderer? Just look at Isaiah 9:7. Gnostic beliefs aren't supported in any way by the Bible; quite the opposite. 1 Peter 5:7 --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Papias and Gospel of Thomas

message: An image used in this article, File:Papias.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Papias.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: The entire discussion of the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of Matthew is misplaced. This should be in an article on the gospels, Matthew, or possibly a totally separate article. All that needs to be noted here is that Papias made the comments. It seems the reader could be forwarded to another article for further information.
Elsteve9 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Papias of Hierapolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: >Papias himself knows several New Testament books, whose dates are themselves controversial,
The idea that Papias, himself, knows New Testament books, is precisely what is debated. His source, relationship to it in transmission, the substance of his testimony and his credibility are at issue.
The works he describes don't match our 
Matthew and Mark and characterizations of his testimony like the above appear more interested in securing apostolic provenance for the Gospels than carefully examining the reliabilty of what he said. Spiker 22 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be fixed