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: 69750
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 (1-102) not displayed.
.
.
.
#103. To: GarySpFC (#101)
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?
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. What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this. Maybe you should not pretend you have any scholarship in theology after that statement?
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
I gave you a present day example of a present day sect which is still left in the Holy Land that hasn't stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did. What in the world is there to live down? Agreeing with you?
You might ask if the Catholic hierarchy only ever intended to use its sacred art to aid the salvation of the sighted and were therefore indifferent to the eternal fate of the blind. Certainly, that was not their intent and they did provide for the inspiration of the blind with some pretty excellent religious music. Over the centuries the blind, who were generally neglected by their societies in daily life, probably appreciated the sacred music more than any of the sighted appreciated the sacred art. You also fail to account for the work of the Spirit. Most sola scriptura types would say that scripture does not win any converts through words alone. Certainly, it is not equally effective in converting all persons. Therefore, only the Spirit brings real and lasting conviction to the reading. And the Spirit is mysterious, favoring neither rich nor poor, educated or ignorant, etc. This fundamental notion has always been a part of Christianity's huge appeal, especially in the ancient world where the idea that a slave had just as much an eternal soul and destiny as the emperor was nothing short of revolutionary.
Since SOSO is not Greek and thus mentally limited by Western mindsets - the answer is yes even though the Orthodox don't have 'masses' and consider the Eucharist a holy mystery. It kind of reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu was going for a citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War and Apu launched into a long complicated answer and the test giver said "just say slavery". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8VCbvMoCV8
I gave you a present day example of a present day sect which is still left in the Holy Land that hasn't stopped worshipping Christ as the first Christians from their community did. What in the world is there to live down? Agreeing with you? No, you thought Armenians were Arameans. I have no idea if you saw Armenians offer sacrifices of animals. You could have seen Kurds who live in depopulated Armenian lands for all I know.
So are you saying that the average man, the universal man is incapable of seeing the Light? "Over the centuries the blind, who were generally neglected by their societies in daily life, probably appreciated the sacred music more than any of the sighted appreciated the sacred art." As I said over and over again, God communicates to us in many ways. "You also fail to account for the work of the Spirit." It is very apparent that you fail to understand my posts. If anything I have taken the position that the Holy Ghost rules. "Therefore, only the Spirit brings real and lasting conviction to the reading. "
LMAO. Why couldn't you just have said no form the git-go? Keep the flames comoig, I appreciate the laughs.
Oh, up yours, you moron. For all you know is crap.
So you have a copy of the autographs?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Listen carefully, Romans 10:17-18 (AMP) 17 So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself). 18 But I ask, Have they not heard? Indeed they have; [for the Scripture says] Their voice [that of nature bearing God's message] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the far bounds of the world. [Ps 19:4.]
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I have attended Greek Orthodox masses in the past, thank you. A simple yes or no to my question would be nice.
A Pole wrote: This teaching that Christ Himself spoke: "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." SOSO- The Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ? Are you even bothering to read what people write before you respond to them? A Pole clearly stated that the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and you respond as though he had said the opposite. Are you just trying to be contrarian here?
Do the attendees at the mass actualyl eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?
If you had attended a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy you would know the answer to that.
And even more than that. Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ humbled Himself to receive baptism from the hands of John the Baptist. He did not do that because of anything that John could bestow upon Him, He showed us through His own example that the way is not a solitary journey, but as a member of a community.
Vicomte wins the internetz for today. In a few concise sentences you expressed clearly why seeking to follow a spiritual life apart from the guidance of the Church is inherently dangerous.
Comments (144 - 202) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBut 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.
#126. To: SOSO (#124)
(Edited)
at 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)?
#127. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#123)
#128. To: Pericles (#126)
What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this.
#129. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#120)
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?
#130. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#127)
(Edited)
o the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#131. To: SOSO (#128)
(Edited)
What do Armenians have to do with Arameans? I don't think you will live that down after this.
#132. To: TooConservative, Orthodoxa, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, liberator (#129)
You might ask if the Catholic hierarchy only ever intended to use its sacred art to aid the salvation of the sighted and were therefore indifferent to the eternal fate of the blind.
#133. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#130)
It kind of reminds me of the Simpsons when Apu was going for a citizenship test and was asked what caused the Civil War and Apu launched into a long complicated answer and the test giver said "just say slavery".
#134. To: Pericles (#131)
No, you thought Armenians were Arameans.
#135. To: A Pole (#72)
Sorry, but the Greek version of the New Testament is superior to all others. You can rage and accuse, huff and puff and it will remain the plain truth.
#136. To: SOSO (#127)
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#137. To: SOSO (#105)
The question is when does faith first come not what is required for salavation. Yes, some don't listen.
#138. To: Orthodoxa (#136)
Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they? Is it an integral, if not crucial, part of their Mass?
#139. To: SOSO, A Pole (#110)
#140. To: Orthodoxa (#139)
A Pole clearly stated that the Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and you respond as though he had said the opposite. Are you just trying to be contrarian here?
#141. To: SOSO (#140)
Do the attendees at the mass actually eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?
#142. 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.
#143. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#91)
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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]