International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Mummy Mask May Reveal Oldest Known Gospel
Source:
livescience.com
URL Source: http://www.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html
Published: Jan 18, 2015
Author: Owen Jarus
Post Date: 2015-01-18 18:39:21 by Fibr Dog
Keywords: None
Views: 69662
Comments: 202
A text that may be the oldest copy of a gospel known to exist — a fragment of the Gospel of Mark that was written during the first century, before the year 90 — is set to be published. At present, the oldest surviving copies of the gospel texts date to the second century (the years 101 to 200). This first-century gospel fragment was written on a sheet of papyrus that was later reused to create a mask that was worn by a mummy. Although the mummies of Egyptian pharaohs wore masks made of gold, ordinary people had to settle for masks made out of papyrus (or linen), paint and glue. Given how expensive papyrus was, people often had to reuse sheets that already had writing on them. In recent years scientists have developed a technique that allows the glue of mummy masks to be undone without harming the ink on the paper. The text on the sheets can then be read. The first-century gospel is one of hundreds of new texts that a team of about three-dozen scientists and scholars is working to uncover, and analyze, by using this technique of ungluing the masks, said Craig Evans, a professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. "We're recovering ancient documents from the first, second and third centuries. Not just Christian documents, not just biblical documents, but classical Greek texts, business papers, various mundane papers, personal letters," Evans told Live Science. The documents include philosophical texts and copies of stories by the Greek poet Homer. The business and personal letters sometimes have dates on them, he said. When the glue was dissolved, the researchers dated the first-century gospel in part by analyzing the other documents found in the same mask. One drawback to the process is that the mummy mask is destroyed, and so scholars in the field are debating whether that particular method should be used to reveal the texts they contain. But Evans emphasized that the masks that are being destroyed to reveal the new texts are not high quality ones that would be displayed in a museum. Some are not masks at all but are simply pieces of cartonnage. Evans told Live Science, "We're not talking about the destruction of any museum-quality piece." The technique is bringing many new texts to light, Evans noted. "From a single mask, it's not strange to recover a couple dozen or even more" new texts, he told Live Science. "We're going to end up with many hundreds of papyri when the work is done, if not thousands." Debate Scholars who work on the project have to sign a nondisclosure agreement that limits what they can say publicly. There are several reasons for this agreement. One is that some of the owners of these masks simply do not want to be made known, Evans said. "The scholars who are working on this project have to honor the request of the museums, universities, private owners, so forth." The owners of the mummy masks retain ownership of the papyrus sheets after the glue on them is dissolved. Evans said that the only reason he can talk about the first-century gospel before it is published is because a member of the team leaked some of the information in 2012. Evans was careful to say that he is not telling Live Science anything about the first-century gospel that hasn't already been leaked online. Soon after the 2012 leak, speculation surrounded the methods that the scholars used to figure out the gospel's age. Evans says that the text was dated through a combination of carbon-14 dating, studying the handwriting on the fragment and studying the other documents found along with the gospel. These considerations led the researchers to conclude that the fragment was written before the year 90. With the nondisclosure agreement in place, Evans said that he can't say much more about the text's date until the papyrus is published. Destruction of mummy masks The process that is used to obtain the papyri, which involves the destruction of the mummy masks, has also generated debate. For instance, archaeologist Paul Barford, who writes about collecting and heritage issues, has written a scathing blog post criticizing the work on the gospel. Roberta Mazza, a lecturer in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester, has blogged her concerns about the text as has Brice Jones, a doctoral candidate in religion at Concordia University. When the texts are published the debate is likely to move beyond the blogosphere and into mainstream media and scholarly journals. Biblical clues Although the first-century gospel fragment is small, the text will provide clues as to whether the Gospel of Mark changed over time, Evans said. His own research is focused on analyzing the mummy mask texts, to try to determine how long people held onto them before disposing or reusing them. This can yield valuable information about how biblical texts were copied over time. "We have every reason to believe that the original writings and their earliest copies would have been in circulation for a hundred years in most cases — in some cases much longer, even 200 years," he said. This means that "a scribe making a copy of a script in the third century could actually have at his disposal (the) first-century originals, or first-century copies, as well as second-century copies." Set to publish Evans said that the research team will publish the first volume of texts obtained through the mummy masks and cartonnage later this year. It will include the gospel fragment that the researchers believe dates back to the first century. The team originally hoped the volume would be published in 2013 or 2014, but the date had to be moved back to 2015. Evans said he is uncertain why the book's publication was delayed, but the team has made use of the extra time to conduct further studies into the first-century gospel. "The benefit of the delay is that when it comes out, there will be additional information about it and other related texts."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-84) not displayed.
.
.
.
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Or Communion which means communion.
A literalist could say that he's communing with God when he remembers Christ while eating bread and wine. Traditionalists would not agree, but literalists don't care whether they agree or not. But baptism is the first hard point in a "Me and God alone" approach, because there is no way to read baptism in Scripture to not see that it must be done TO you BY another. You can't baptize yourself. That reality forces the literalist to do one of two things: (1) Turn on Scripture itself and say that it's not authoritative, and therefore you CAN baptize yourself, OR (2) Say that the "good thief" wasn't baptized, but Jesus promised him Paradise that day nevertheless. (There are, then, two responses to that, and so on.) The bigger questions from (not to you, but in general to those who say we don't need organized religion or scripture) me are pretty straightforward: if we discard organized religion, as has been suggested, and then also discard Scripture as unreliable, and just rely on "The Holy Spirit" to tell us, how do we know that the spirit that's talking to us is Holy? Mohammed did that, rejecting both the pagan temples of his region and the Christian Church of the neighbors, and he wrote his own book, inspired by the spirit that spoke to him. Was Mohammed inspired by God? He certainly thought he was, and he had tremendous success and victory (and so does Islam) to prove it in the real world too. So, is Allah the Holy Spirit? No? How do you know? Because Islam preaches evil. But how do you know what is evil; the spirit told Mohammed that evil is good. If we lived in the world with only one spirit, the Holy Spirit, then we could just chuck organized religion and scripture and rely on the inner voice. But we live in a world in which Satan and demons can also speak to us internally. Without the fixed reference points of institutions and Scripture, why would Sam Berkowitz NOT kill all those people that God told him to kill, directly out of the mouth of his neighbor's German Shepherd? The biggest problem with rejecting organized religion and written texts and just relying on the Holy Spirit alone is that the Holy Spirit isn't the only spirit out there in the marketplace of ideas, and without the institutional reference points, we have no way of judging whether the spirit talking to us is Holy or not… other than our personal opinion. I know in my case there are a few things I am told are sins that never troubled my conscience, at all, and that based on my inner light I don't think are sins at all. I have institutions and texts to tell me I'm wrong. If I throw those out, then the spirits that talk to me guide me to a lot of good, but also guide me to things that institution and tradition would call heresy or worse. Invisible intelligent spirits that can read our thoughts and manipulate our bodies exist. I know this empirically. I also know that I, at least, do not have a detection mechanism that is sharp enough to always be able to tell the fair from the foul. Navigating what spirits say without the external reference points of institution and scripture seems to me like trying to fly through clouds without instruments. If you're a lucky pilot, you can do that a few times for short periods. Keep doing it, and you'll end up smashing into a hill or the ground, though.
Chri stian Myth Theory This is just a touch at the issue as atheists and skeptics picked up on this Jewish theory from long ago. There are other sites which claim Gentiles made up Jesus from a Greco/Roman 'messiah' story. Thus claiming Christianity had pagan origins. There's loads of kooky stuff out there if you can imagine.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
In which the Council of Orange addressed Pelagianism and semi Pelagianism.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water. As Phillip was sent to explain the Gospel to the Ethiopian and then baptize him.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Good point. We are commanded to loving share, commune in the Lord's Supper.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Boom.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Let's say an atheist, Robinson Crusoe, was stranded on a desert island with only a Bible. He read it and became a Christian but worried over the phrases about "believe and be baptized" as commanded in scripture. Well, you see the problem. Let's say Friday shows up and he becomes a Christian too. Now we have two unbaptized Christians. Can an unbaptized believer baptize others? Or should both Robinson and Friday die as unbaptized Christians? Just for fun, don't forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus. That always makes these discussion more interesting. : ) Here is a decent page on the topic that does not account for what Jesus said to the thief. So is baptism a work of man? I always thought these disputes are why Baptists slyly refer to both communion and baptism as "ordinances", not sacraments. And, miraculously, no one asks pointed questions about the differences between the two. It always seems to me that the importance of baptism is in receiving it as a believer, not in the spiritual merits of the one who baptizes. Which opens up an entirely different can of worms for those who might want to dispute the topic.
Excellent insight. I dont' recall anyone here saying that there is no value, function, purpose to insititutuions and Scripture. I certainly never said that though I am certain some will accuse me of doing so. FTR I say that insititutuions and Scripture are imperfect and by themself insufficient in establishing a personal relationship with God, the missing ingredient being faith. I asked Gary this question and in typical fashion he ducked it. I will now ask you all. When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith? Insitutions and Scripture certainly provide context and something physical to latch on to when the way gets dim and temptations come calling. They provide road signs. To many they provide encouragement to stay the course. They help nurture the first understandings of the child into more mature, adult commitment. But they are not perfect. I find it amazing that some have expressed the belief that there is nothing to be learned from these new finds, or any potential new finds, that predate the earliest known writtings. IMO this is a profound demostration of a closed mind. To them it appears that the Council of Nicea is over and done and represents the end of the trail and has settled all issues about Christ and God. I guess it is useless to ask them the what if question as they already know the answer and will likely quote some passage in Scripture to prove their contention.
Except for baptism, at least... Good point. I wasn't referring to the physical manifestations of church rituals but I did open the door and will have to walk throgh it. Unfortuantely I do not have time to do so right now. But let's start with agreeing on what baptism is. Here's one definition: Baptism (from the Greek noun ²¬ÀĹü± baptisma; see below) is a Christian sacrament of admission and adoption, almost invariably with the use of water, into the Christian Church generally and also a particular church." Please offer your defintion.
I understand your point. Usually good theology is not based on extreme situations; HOWEVER, those extreme situations we do see, DO tell us something. I will read your link now.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
Just as the lawyers say that hard cases make bad law, it is also true that hard cases make bad theology. We might relegate most of these arguments to being "unprofitable disputes".
From the site you linked to me is the above quote. Seems their premise is "if you believe, then believing is getting baptized." Makes sense as we see in Acts those who believed the Gospel were baptized. I think the site is an apologetic for those churches that view baptism and the Lord's Supper as 'works' of the Law. Most of those churches also use the 'rightly dividing the word of truth' to mean the church did not start at Pentecost but mid or end of Acts. Seems this site has such churches in mind.
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
When does a person first come to faith? John 3: 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Probably John chapters 1-4 for reference to address your question above. We are also told those who seek God will find God: Isaiah 55:6-9King James Version (KJV) 6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? Parents are directly responsible for raising their children in the matter of God and faith... Deuteronomy 6 New King James Version (NKJV) 6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. Matthew 5: 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith? John 3: 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” "Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
We might relegate most of these arguments to being "unprofitable disputes". I agree. As Gary's friend Greg Finch pointed out in his article, if one proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then why all the double speak...Obey Him and get in that water and proclaim that faith for the Glory of God. (paraphrase summary of course) In Christian Baptism, someone is proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and this Glorifies God. It pleases the Father to see His Son's Holy Name proclaimed, to all others!
"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus
But certainly a Christian can judge and evaluate who is a traditional Christian. Christians cannot judge the hearts or final destinations of anyone. However, we are commanded to try the spirits to see if they are from God. 1st John 4:1 to 4.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Jn 4:32.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 1 Ti 2:5–6. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. As God He can hear our prayers, as man translate them as our mediator, and then bring our requests before the Father for answers.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
And also this: John 4: 10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?” 13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”(NKJV)
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith? I have answered this question several times, but some don't listen. The Word is very clear. To be saved in individual needs to place his faith in the Christ of the Bible, repent of his sins, be baptized by immersion, and walk by faith in Jesus Christ and in newness of life.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
The question is when does faith first come not what is required for salavation. Yes, some don't listen.
{Sigh}
No, you need another of your church to baptize you.
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects?
"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The the Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the boby and blood of Christ?
Romans 10 New King James Version (NKJV) 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world.” "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Really Jasper? I gave you the answers to the posed questions straight from the Light of the World Jesus Christ. Be the woman at the well! (disclaimer; I not advocating you becoming a woman, but to take the example of her faith). John chapter 4 for you tonight Jasper. We even covered that chapter at Fordham. Are you saying Forham had a better theological program than Manhattan?
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Just saying...If you were a eunuch in a chariot and asked me for directions to Jesus Christ I would oblige. I would also baptize you if believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Languages changes, does it mean that Mark Twain books stopped to be English? How many dialects are there in the modern Greek language? How many in the ancient greek language? Do dialects have there own idioms? Nuances to words? This chart shows samples of the changes in English. #1 is Old English or Anglo-Saxon (circa 450-1066 CE). #2 is Middle English (circa 1066-1450 AD). #3 is Modern English from about the time of Shakespeare. #4 is another sample of Modern English, but it is more recent than #3. 1 would be a Greek to those that only spoke 4 as Greek itself.
Did you take a Shakespearean sonnets course at Manhattan? Or even an Middle English Lit course trying to decipher the Canterbury Tales in the original? Once you do it is easy to see the progression of the language. A progression which the KJV helped stablized and codify to some degree. I mean, can anyone go to the Canterbury Tales and figure this out?! We were graded on this! WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote 1 The droghte 2 of Marche hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich 3 licour, Of which vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth5 Inspired hath in every holt 4 and heeth The tendre croppes, 5 and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne, 6 And smale fowles maken melodye, That slepen al the night with open ye,10 (So priketh hem nature in hir corages: 7
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
No. But no-one is being asked to base their salvation on it. And stop aiding TC, please.
How many dialects are there in Modern Greek? How many in ANcient Greek?
Maybe it is simpler than that. If you belong to the Good Shepherd, obey His smallest request. It is easy for anyone to say they believe. But any act to actually confirm it is much rarer. And that includes seeking baptism. Think of the tens of millions who claim to be Christian but never give a thought to religion otherwise. How can they claim to be Christian in any sense if they claim to believe but refuse baptism? "Believe and be baptized" is simple enough for any child to grasp. I think there may be other factors involved that we cannot know in this life. But to believe and then to obey seems to clinch the deal, so to speak.
You mean that the full breadth and scope of the Word of God is only for the well educated and those of ample intellectual prowess? God does not mean to have all of His words, and critical nuances, to be perfectly understood by all men but just a priviledged few? Wow, I missed that memo. I hope that you understand that you just made my point far better than I have been able to do. By your own admission these "lesser" versions of Scripture are man made for mass consumtption by the less educated and/or those only capable of diminished understanding. They may have been good, honest men but they are still men, flawed and fallible. But perhaps this is by God's design? As Vicomte13 points out there is a hieracrchy in Heaven. Some live in the slums of Heaven, others have beach front property. Though God is ever present there He is more present to some than to others. So perhaps God only gives the individual man what that man is capable of understanding, you know something like the Classic comic books or Cliff Notes - just the minimum to get past the Pearly Gates?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they?
What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects? Throw out the term traditional Christians. the best term is historic Christians. We have a historical record and an archeological record of how Christians worshipped going back in time. It is clear that Mediterranean Christians are closer to the early Christians in both language and in how they worship and in what they believe. You think a Christian from 200AD (just a random date) would find anything comprehensible about what Protestants do in Church beyond the language barrier? That Arameans who are still left in the Holy Land somehow stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did (and theirs was amongst the first Christians)?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the- doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/ In this confession of faith enjoying wide acceptance throughout the seventeenth century Orthodox Church, Patriarch Dositheus teaches that Christ is “truly and really” present in the Eucharistic elements. He does not mention here the timing of the change, but simply that the bread and wine are “transubstantiated” (again, ¼µÄ¿ÅïÉùÂ) into the “true Body” and “true Blood” of the Lord. 340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation? In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.) Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1830) In St. Philaret’s catechism, we are given the first distinction between the Eastern and Western description of transubstantiation of which I’m aware. Writing in the nineteenth century, Philaret says that transubstantiation is not a reference to the change itself—since none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes place—but that it is merely a reference to our Lord being “truly, really, and substantially” present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension. In a sense, it is impossible to draw a true comparison between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints on this issue, since only one communion has dogmatically ruled on the question. In their dialogues and disputes with the Protestant reformers, the Latin Christians dogmatically ruled a number of issues that had previously been left to relative mystery—or were not as “officially” defined as at the Council of Trent and following. In the rare cases where the Orthodox Church has responded to the arguments of the Reformers, the word transubstantiate is used to clarify the Orthodox position, in contradistinction from the positions of both Luther and Calvin (among others). However, this has never risen to the level of dogma, nor has it been ecumenically mandated. In other words, the Orthodox clergy were (wisely) using the words of their own day to differentiate themselves from the Protestants, while not necessarily painting themselves into a dogmatic corner. And it should be noted too that Scholasticism itself is not wholly foreign to Orthodoxy, nor is it exclusive of the West. In the end, while I appreciate the aim of Dr. Dunn’s post, I think on this particular point he has overstated his case. As Orthodox Christians, we must be careful to balance and nuance our claims, especially with regards to the Latins or “the West.” The last thing we want to do is oversimplify matters to the extent of seeming deceptive or—perhaps worse—misinformed. After all, this is typically what gets thrown our way from those unfamiliar with Orthodoxy (beyond literature), often justly putting us on the “defensive” (an important distinction from “triumphalism”) in response to such misrepresentations. That being said, I’m open to feedback if anyone (Roman or Orthodox) thinks I’ve misrepresented one side or the other in this article.
When I was last in Armenia in 1999 the Armenian church was still scarificing animals as part of certain church rituals. I suspect that that hasn't changed since then.
The Greek used is very well documented. I don't get why t his is an argument?
Comments (126 - 202) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestExcept for baptism, at least...
#86. To: A Pole (#85)
Except for baptism, at least... Or Communion which means communion.
#87. To: CZ82 (#81)
#88. To: TooConservative (#82)
But the tendency to overthrow Christian liberty and replace it with the strictures of legalistic Judaism has not gone away and we can find it cropping up throughout the history of the churches.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Except for baptism, at least...
#90. To: A Pole (#85)
Or Communion which means communion.
#91. To: Vicomte13 (#86)
The bigger questions from (not to you, but in general to those who say we don't need organized religion or scripture) me are pretty straightforward: if we discard organized religion, as has been suggested, and then also discard Scripture as unreliable, and just rely on "The Holy Spirit" to tell us, how do we know that the spirit that's talking to us is Holy? Mohammed did that, rejecting both the pagan temples of his region and the Christian Church of the neighbors, and he wrote his own book, inspired by the spirit that spoke to him.
#92. To: redleghunter (#89)
Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water. As Phillip was sent to explain the Gospel to the Ethiopian and then baptize him.
#93. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#86)
If we lived in the world with only one spirit, the Holy Spirit, then we could just chuck organized religion and scripture and rely on the inner voice. But we live in a world in which Satan and demons can also speak to us internally. Without the fixed reference points of institutions and Scripture,
#94. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, All (#83)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#95. To: TooConservative (#92)
Just for fun, don't forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus. That always makes these discussion more interesting. : )
#96. To: redleghunter (#95)
#97. To: TooConservative (#92)
"Baptism is equated with belief. To reject baptism is equated with disbelief. If one believes the message, they will accept baptism."
#98. To: SOSO, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#93)
When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith?
#99. To: TooConservative, GarySpFc (#96)
Just as the lawyers say that hard cases make bad law, it is also true that hard cases make bad theology.
#100. To: A Pole (#73)
You got it wrong. A true Christian should not and cannot judge others (Christian or non Christian) ie how others are seen by God.
#101. To: A Pole (#74)
"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
#102. To: Vicomte13, SoSo (#83)
God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.
#103. To: GarySpFC (#101)
But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”
#104. To: SOSO (#93)
I asked Gary this question and in typical fashion he ducked it. I will now ask you all.
#105. To: GarySpFC (#104)
I have answered this question several times, but some don't listen.
#106. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#98)
#107. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#89)
Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water.
#108. To: Pericles, Orthodoxa (#75)
SOSO are you claiming that Shakespeare's English is another language than modern English?
#109. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa (#73)
For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian.
#110. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa (#74)
This teaching that Christ Himself spoke:
#111. To: SOSO, GarySpFc (#105)
The question is when does faith first come
#112. To: SOSO (#106)
{Sigh}
#113. To: SOSO (#107)
No, you need another of your church to baptize you.
#114. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redlgehunter, GarySpFc, Fibr Dog, Don, BobCeleste, listener, liberator, All (#68)
English of today is different from the King James English or Shakespeare. Yet it does not make Shakespeare a Greek writer.
#115. To: SOSO, TooConservative (#108)
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
#116. To: SOSO, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#110)
The the Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the boby and blood of Christ?
#117. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#115)
I mean, can anyone go to the Canterbury Tales and figure this out?!
#118. To: Orthodoxa (#44)
But, for an example as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, you do understand that Greek Orthodox aren't reading a translation, don't you?
#119. To: redleghunter (#99)
...Obey Him and get in that water and proclaim that faith for the Glory of God.
#120. To: Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, TooComservative, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#44)
Some of the English translations are deliberately simplified to help evangelize less educated people -- for that purpose they work fine, but in a debate over some nuance in Scripture they would not be as useful.
#121. To: redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#116)
I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
#122. To: SOSO, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#109)
For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian.
#123. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#121)
think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.
#124. To: Pericles, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#122)
That Arameans who are still left in the Holy Land somehow stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did (and theirs was amongst the first Christians)?
#125. To: SOSO (#108)
I am claiming that those that only speak modern English cannot perfectly communicate with those that only speak Shakespeare's English and visce versa. The may understand each other on 99% of things but not all things and not to a level of 100% certainty.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]