[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 69784
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 157.

#4. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Don, BobCeleste, listener, Liberator (#0)

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.

Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   19:20:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: SOSO (#4)

Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?

No.

The Church preceded the New Testament, as testified by Scripture itself. Most of Paul's Epistles are written to already existing Churches. "to the Church that is in Corinth", Galatians, Ephesians, etc. Most of those Churches have never ceased to exist -- the ones above are parts of the Greek Orthodox Church, for example.

It was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which decided the Canon of Scripture. And in the same way the Church cast out heretics in the Ecumenical Councils.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   19:45:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Orthodoxa (#11)

Maybe this will led to a new Council of Nicea?

No.

Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   19:46:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: SOSO (#12)

Ah, I love an open minded person. Don't worry, the religious establishment has your back.

LOL. I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian says is that I'm close-minded.

That way you don't even have to pay attention to the premise that I posted. The Church determined the Canon of Scripture, not the other way around. That's just historical fact.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   19:49:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Orthodoxa (#14)

I love it when the first thing someone who is not a traditional Christian

Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   19:51:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: SOSO (#16)

Do you know something that God doesn't, i.e. that I am not a traditional Christian?

If you are a traditional Christian, then why would you argue to replace an Ecumenical Council?

It's funny, literally this very day the Orthodox Church commemorates Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who expressed the Orthodox doctrine in two of the Ecumenical Councils.

Are you arguing that Athanasius should be cast out if a few words on some mummy wrappings do not support his defense of the Divinity of Christ?

You do understand, don't you, that the Church rejected various "Gnostic Gospels" that taught things contrary to what they had received from the Apostles?

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:06:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Orthodoxa, redleghunter (#19)

It's funny, literally this very day the Orthodox Church commemorates Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who expressed the Orthodox doctrine in two of the Ecumenical Councils.

As should all diligent bible students. The Orthodox do cultivate a very long memory.

I recall my shock one Sunday when some mention was made of the early canon and I mentioned Athanasius and they all looked at me like they'd never heard of him. Sadly, they probably hadn't because they were too busy collecting the 17 volumes of Left Behind books.

I never comprehend how some Christians seem to have no detectable interest in scripture. In a Catholic, well, maybe since they rely on tradition. But how can a Prot or Baptist be so uninterested when the basic facts are not difficult to grasp? It baffles me.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-18   20:25:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#26)

Since it came up, here is a small smattering of the hymns sung to commemorate those two Egyptian Bishops who defended traditional Christianity in the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus:

Ss. Athanasius and Cyril (Men. Jan. 18, Vesp.)

Verse 4: From the morning watch until night, from the morning watch let Israel trust in the Lord.

Persecutions didst thou endure; many perils didst thou abide, righteous Athanasius, thou man of speech divine, until thou hadst banished far off the godless error of Arius and hadst saved the faithful flock from his grievous impiety, when with right belief thou didst teach that the Son and Spirit both are one in essence with the Father, O sacred minister blessed of God.

Verse 3: For with the Lord there is mercy and with Him is abundant redemption, and He will deliver Israel from all His iniquities.

With thy preaching’s bright lightning-bolts, thou didst drive all deception out, and thou didst enlighten them that were in the dark, when for the Faith, thou didst cast thyself in dangers, O most renowned, as a firm foundation-stone and true shepherd of Christ God’s Church. Wherefore, we rejoice as we gather to honor thee with songs, O steadfast Father Athanasius, on this, thy holy memorial.

Verse 2: Praise the Lord, all ye nations. Praise Him, all ye people.

In thy doctrines, which breathe with fire, all the substance of heresies is burnt up like sticks in the flame, O man most wise; the host of godless and disobedient foes drowneth in the depths of thy knowledge and thy thoughts; but the Church of the faithful is ever fair arrayed with thy doctrines of wisdom, O blessed Cyril, as it crieth with a great voice and giveth honor and praise to thee.

Verse 1: For His mercy is great towards us, and the truth of the Lord endureth forever.

With the eloquence of thy words all the Church is made beautiful, O most sacred Cyril; and with great reverence she doth rejoice in thy doctrines as in beautiful ornaments and doth honor sacredly thine auspicious and holy feast, O most glorious, thou great boast of the Orthodox and leader of the Fathers at the Council, the holy Virgin’s brave champion.

Tone 6 Doxasticon for Ss. Athanasius And Cyril (Men. Jan. 18, Vesp.)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

Come, O ye feast-lovers, and as we gather, let us extol with spiritual praises those chiefs of hierarchs and pinnacles of patriarchs, the all-bright luminaries of the whole world, and expositions of the mind of Christ, and let us say: Rejoice, O wise Athanasius, namesake of immortality, who with the sling of thy divinely-wise doctrines didst hurl from Christ’s flock the trifler Arius as a wolf. Rejoice, O all-blessed Cyril, star bright with all splendor, champion of the Ever-virgin, who with stentorian voice in the midst of the sacred assembly at Ephesus didst illustriously proclaim her to be the Theotokos, and didst refute the nonsense of Nestorius. Rejoice, ye well-springs of theology, everflowing rivers of the wisdom of God, and gushing fountain of divine knowledge. O thrice-blessed Fathers, cease not to intercede with Christ for those who celebrate with faith and love your all-sacred and divine festival.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:37:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13, SOSO (#30)

And here is the Epistle Reading that is for the commemoration of Ss. Athanasius and Cyril today:

St. Paul's Letter to the Hebrews 13:7-16

Brethren, remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go forth to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come. Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   21:04:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Orthodoxa, redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#37)

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

No Christian of any of the myriad of Christian sects would take exception to this. To use perhaps an inelegant phrease, the Devil is in the details as to what each of these sects deem to be pleasing to God. You claim that the differences bewtween the varies translations of Scripture is trivial. That is willful deception. Tally up those which believe in transubstantiation and the signficiance that has upon what is pleasing to God and those that don't. Next tell me which are "traditional" Christians and which are not.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   21:40:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: SOSO (#41)

You claim that the differences between the varies translations of Scripture is trivial. That is willful deception.

If that was addressed to me (it was a reply to my post) I never said any such thing.

Some translations are absolutely horrible, the Jehovah's Witness version comes to mind.

But, for an example as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, you do understand that Greek Orthodox aren't reading a translation, don't you?

There are a number of excellent English translations of the Bible, but of course some are better than others. You have to take into account what the translator's purpose was. 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.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   21:51:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Orthodoxa (#44)

You have to take into account what the translator's purpose was. 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.

That is very condescending and insulting to the 99.99999% of people who do not have the time nor the means the few priviledged self-annointed elite have to engage in the study so that the poor, unintelligent, less educated can reveal the truth for themself. And even the few priviledged self-annointed elite can't agree among themself. The each choose to stake out their particular piece of the pie.

The Word Of God is for all men. It can't believe that God did not intend it to be understandable by all men without having to rely upon priviledged self- annointed elites. God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

And you consider yourself a traditional Christian?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   22:11:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SOSO, A K A Stone (#49)

That is very condescending and insulting to the 99.99999% of people who do not have the time nor the means the few priviledged self-annointed elite have to engage in the study so that the poor, unintelligent, less educated can reveal the truth for themself. And even the few priviledged self-annointed elite can't agree among themself. The each choose to stake out their particular piece of the pie.

The Word Of God is for all men. It can't believe that God did not intend it to be understandable by all men without having to rely upon priviledged self- annointed elites. God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

And you consider yourself a traditional Christian?

Your gross exaggerations really do not do much to advance your argument.

As Stone stated, really anyone in the English speaking world who takes the time to understand a good translation like the KJV has a pretty good translation to use.

You keep throwing out an "either / or" fallacy. I.E. you are acting as though either every translation has to be absolutely perfect or that they are all rubbish.

No, as in most translations, some are better than others.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to be taking a hyper-Protestant approach that goes far afield from mainstream Protestants. I.E. you are acting as though the most important thing is nuances within the Book while ignoring the fact that the purpose of the Book is Who it introduces us to.

Christians do not worship the Bible, we worship the God who is revealed in it.

God can indeed intervene and establish a relationship with someone without another intermediary, but that isn't what usually happens. Did you read the verses from Hebrews that I quoted upthread? Most of us are Christians because of those who preceded us in the faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

If you overthrow the Nicene Council, then you are saying that the very nature of Jesus changed. I worship the same Jesus as the Evangelists, Athanasius, Nicholas, and countless other Christians throughout the ages worship. If you change the fundamental definition of who Jesus is, then you are no longer worshiping the same God as all those Christians before you did.

You want to talk about elitism? THAT is elitism, the presumption that all of these Christians throughout 2,000 years of history had it wrong, but you can figure it out correctly by yourself.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   22:59:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Orthodoxa (#52)

You keep throwing out an "either / or" fallacy. I.E. you are acting as though either every translation has to be absolutely perfect or that they are all rubbish.

No, as in most translations, some are better than others.

Only the condescending, arrogant claim to be not only the best but the one and only true version. You are not really a Christian in your arrogance, presumption of superiority and most of all your judging of who is a true, traditional Christian.

"THAT is elitism, the presumption that all of these Christians throughout 2,000 years of history had it wrong, but you can figure it out correctly by yourself. "

Wow, you talk about me throwing out fallices? I place my beats on the Holy Ghost and my relationship with God that His gift of faith allows me to embrace. Too bad that offends a faux paper Christian such as yourself.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   23:06:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: SOSO (#53)

Only the condescending, arrogant claim to be not only the best but the one and only true version. You are not really a Christian in your arrogance, presumption of superiority and most of all your judging of who is a true, traditional Christian.

I've not questioned any member in this conversations' salvation status.

I can't, only God will be the judge of that. It is He who will sit upon the throne on Judgement Day, not me or you.

And yet while you accuse me of elitism and being judgemental, you have already declared what my eternal status will be, a "faux paper Christian".

You bring judgement upon yourself, brother, with your own statements.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   23:19:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Orthodoxa (#56)

And yet while you accuse me of elitism and being judgemental, you have already declared what my eternal status will be, a "faux paper Christian".

We know you by your acts. Only a false Christian would presume to determine who is a traditional Christian and who is not, much less crow about it. I made no such judgments about the status of anyone's eternal life. Check the record. You are a bible thumping charlaton. Try throwing you BS huff and puff thunderbolts at little children and the less educated instead of an adult.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   23:27:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: SOSO (#57)

We know you by your acts. Only a false Christian would presume to determine who is a traditional Christian and who is not, much less crow about it. I made no such judgments about the status of anyone's eternal life. Check the record. You are a bible thumping charlaton. Try throwing you BS huff and puff thunderbolts at little children and the less educated instead of an adult.

Determining what is traditional is not a matter of opinion, it is just a knowledge of history.

If, for example, someone preaches a doctrine that was never taught throughout the 2,000+ years of Christian history, then that doctrine isn't traditional. They are free to do so, but me stating that it isn't traditional Christianity is not presumptious opinion but simply stating historical fact.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your facts.

And yes, you did make a judgement about the status of my eternal life. You said that I am a "faux paper Christian". You do know that "faux" means fake, don't you? If I'm a fake Christian, then you are saying that I am destined for hell.

And now you call me a "false Christian" and a "charlatan" as well.

I've never judged anyone in this thread as to what will happen to them in the afterlife. You have, repeatedly. And you now accuse me of being childish?

I am talking about the Orthodox Church because that is what I am and know. I thought that I made it plain that I welcome fellow Christians to explain their beliefs in one of my first posts upthread. When we have smart Catholics and Protestants in this forum, it would be rather childish of me to presume to speak for them, which is why I focus on what I know.

And unlike you, I personally expect that there will probably be many Christians from backgrounds different than mine in heaven. You, on the other hand, are professing to know right now who will be there and who will not. You have already pronounced me to be hellbound.

Thankfully, it is God, and not you who will sit upon the Throne. May He have mercy on both of us.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   23:44:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Orthodoxa (#58)

And yes, you did make a judgement about the status of my eternal life. You said that I am a "faux paper Christian". You do know that "faux" means fake, don't you? If I'm a fake Christian, then you are saying that I am destined for hell.

You don't even believe what you profess it is to be Christian, namely redemption, salvation through God's forgiveness. I never even implied that your soul was lost but just that in your present state based on your actions your are a false Christian not a real one. And you continue to act in that manner. You may yet see the light. That's not for me to judge.

"If, for example, someone preaches a doctrine that was never taught throughout the 2,000+ years of Christian history, then that doctrine isn't traditional."

Oh, so which teaching is traditional, the consecrated host is in fact the Body and Blood of Christ or not? The teaching on my particular sect of Christianity is that it is. I gather that in yours it is not. I don't condemn you for that. I don't even judge you. But I do accuse you based on your demonstrated presumptions and arrogance.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   0:10:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa (#59)

Oh, so which teaching is traditional, the consecrated host is in fact the Body and Blood of Christ or not?

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."

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:49:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: A Pole, Orthodoxa (#74)

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."

The the Greek Orthodox church is not Christian because they do not believe in the Eucharist as being the boby and blood of Christ?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   16:39:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: SOSO, A Pole (#110)

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?

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-19   20:25:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

Do the attendees at the mass actualyl eat the bread (host) and drink the wine or not?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   20:27:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: SOSO (#140)

Do the attendees at the mass actually 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.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-19   20:31:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: Orthodoxa (#141)

Do the attendees at the mass actually 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.

Why won't you answer a most simply question? Are you deliberately being deceitful?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   21:22:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: SOSO (#145)

Why won't you answer a most simply question? Are you deliberately being deceitful?

You said that you've attended Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgies. Were you being deceitful?

Unless you are physically blind, you would know the answer to your question without anyone needing to remind you. The Eucharist is the focus of it. The answer to your question is not subtle or needing nuance.

And if you really do not recall, I posted the video above. As Philip said to Nathaniel, "Come and see."

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-19   21:41:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: Orthodoxa (#149)

Unless you are physically blind, you would know the answer to your question without anyone needing to remind you. The Eucharist is the focus of it. The answer to your question is not subtle or needing nuance.

Your video did not show anyone of the parishioner actual eating or drinking the forms of the eucharist.

Would the receiving the eucharistic forms by a Catholic, or a person of any of the Protest-ant sects that ascribe to the eucharist, at a Greek Orthodox mass have the same meaning and consequence as receiving the eucharistic forms in his own church mass and vice versa?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   21:49:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: SOSO (#150) (Edited)

Would the receiving the eucharistic forms by a Catholic, or a person of any of the Protest-ant sects that ascribe to the eucharist, at a Greek Orthodox mass have the same meaning and consequence as receiving the eucharistic forms in his own church mass and vice versa?

I cannot speak for the Protestants - too varied.

From the Catholic perspective, eucharist at Orthodox liturgies is truly the eucharist: the body and blood of Christ is present, and the sacrament is true and licit.

If a Catholic were to take the eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy, from the perspective of Catholic belief that is eucharist, and the same thing as taking eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

However, Catholics should not normally do so for a very good reason: Catholics should be attending Mass in Churches that are in proper communion with Rome, because there are other issues at stake than the eucharist. Rome and the Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs have been working for years and years to gently discover means of reconciling the wounds of the past. It is not an easy matter, and it is an especially fraught one for the Orthodox laity. For a Catholic to stride up to the altar and take communion in an Orthodox church is sacramentally licit - from a CATHOLIC perspective: that is the eucharist, but it will wound the other people present by inflaming passions, by transgressing boundaries (it may very well not be licit in the ORTHODOX perspective, and it's THEIR Church, for Heaven's sake) - it will throw stumbling blocks in front of good people of good will, and for what? To make a point? But this "point" is not a point that ANY Patriarch, in Rome or in any of the other Sees, thinks should be made at this time.

There are few places on earth where it is impossible for a Catholic to take the eucharist from a Catholic priest, or from a lay eucharistic minister who has been charged with carrying the consecrated host in a pyxis. Formal Canon Law requires that a Catholic take communion once per year at a minimum. Of course people may CRAVE the eucharist, and that is well, but their personal desires must not override the discipline. The long and bitter history of Catholic and Orthodox division has left us with a mess to clean up and a lot of wounds to heal, and that can only be done with mutual respect and care. Going up to take legitimate sacraments at an Orthodox Liturgy, as a Catholic, is pretending to a unity that isn't there yet, and is likely to be a fresh wound that makes that union harder to get to. So it's wrong to do it for very good reasons that have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the sacrament. The Eucharist is COMMUNION, with God, but also with the other communicants present. You can eat the body and blood of Christ and have communion with him, but if you're offending everybody else in the room by doing it, you're not doing it in the proper spirit.

Of course, if you're bleeding out in a car accident or on a battlefield and you're facing death, THEN you take the eucharist from any Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Catholic priest who is there and who offers it - viaticum to the dying is not the moment that anybody needs to be worrying about politics, and nobody is going to be giving offense to anybody by doing it.

From the Catholic perspective, Orthodox communion is the same sacrament as in the Catholic Church.

I can't speak for the Orthodox, though I suspect it is similar. I think that the absence of Orthodox priests resulted in a lot of Orthodox soldiers receiving viaticum from Catholic priests during the World Wars, and I don't think there is a patriarch on the planet today, or then, who denied the sacramental nature of those extraordinary circumstance given in those circumstances.

More than that, I dare not say.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   22:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, redleghunter (#155)

If a Catholic were to take the eucharist at an Orthodox liturgy, from the perspective of Catholic belief that is eucharist, and the same thing as taking eucharist at a Catholic Mass.

Thank you. This is my understanding as well. I too cannot speak for the Greek Orthodox position on this.

I know what is required of a Catholic to receive communion at mass (basicly to be free of mortal sin). I do not know if that is the same as what is required of a Greek Orthodox (but am curious).

Where am I going with this, you may ask. As I see it the things that divide the Christian sects fall into two catagories: the consequential and the consequential. The consequential arise from different interpretations of the fundamental message in Scripture. For the most part the inconsequential have to do with the particulars of rituals. Arguing about those is ridiculous and a waste of time.

There does not appear to be consequential differences between the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic chuches with respect fo the Eucharist. However there are such difference with some Protest-ant sects.

This begs the question of which is the correct interpretation of Scripture. In God's mind, all things equal, could adhering to either position be sufficicent to allow the adherents of either passage through the Pearly Gates? One might get the beach front property the other a cold water flat.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   22:37:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 157.

#168. To: SOSO (#157)

One might get the beach front property the other a cold water flat.

I'll be lucky to be sweeping the streets. A throne and a crown are for the saints. I'd like to be a saint...but not enough to actually be one.

Therefore, I am a very forgiving man. I don't hold grudges. I see the other side. I'm kind and patient, and when I'm impatient, I'm kinder still in the aftermath to undo my impatience.

Jesus said that to be forgiven, you have to forgive, and to the extent that you forgive, you will be forgiven. I take him literally at his word, and I am literally RELYING on that very heavily for the disposition of my final judgment.

It would be nice to avoid Gehenna before the resurrection and judgment too, which makes me ever more forgiving.

I do unto others as I hope God will do unto me. Because there is no way that I am going to go for the rest of my life without succumbing to certain sins. I know it. I don't like it, but I'm honest and a realist.

I have talked to God, seen the Dove, seen a gate of City, been in the black abyss, felt the heat of Gehenna beneath my feet, seen a demon, been embraced by Christ and had a broken neck healed miraculously. God is, I know him, and he knows me. Satan is too, I know him too. So, these things are all real.

And standing on this great field of action is me, a spirit enmeshed in flesh. I have my good qualities (the Calivinsts are wrong about total depravity), and I have my bad qualities that are mine and not simply demonic parasites. And then I've got those too.

I want to be on the good side, the winning side, the right side. I know who the captain is: Christ, and I've read his written orders - that's what I've got. I've read lots of other people's impressions of those orders too. But I find my own reading of those orders to be clearer, cleaner, and more directly what they actually SAY in their original languages. Therefore, I am going to follow what Christ said as he said it, directly. I know that the men who read the orders differently mean well, and I forgive everybody (even when they fulminate at me that I am in danger - or worse - where I don't agree with their read). That doesn't make me agree with their read, or feel any worry. The man I'm worried about pleasing is Jesus, and I know I'm really a pretty poor excuse for a soldier and servant. I'm brave and I'm honest, but I really like the human form, and most especially the naked female form, and that is never going to change; nor am I going to be able to completely resist going right down that path, if only mentally, for precisely the reason that the drunk returns to his wine, the addict returns to his crack, the dog returns to his vomit and the sow returns to her mire.

Maybe when I am old and my testosterone bottoms out at zero, I'll be immune to such temptations because the dead bird does not leave the nest. But then again, maybe not.

In any case, it is what it is. I don't go committing BINARY adultery, which I do distinguish from the "adultery of the heart" of which Jesus spoke. I don't know whether he put the two as exactly equal (if so, why did he add the "of the heart" business). I know that even the latter is bad, according to Jesus. So, there is a recurring, insistent infection of sin in me that isn't going to go away, and that gets a boost from demons (one of them once was VISIBLE) that isn't going to go away anytime soon. I know that 40 continuous day of fasting on water alone does chase those demons out. I also know that a few days more than that will also chase out my biological pilot light, and once fed, the demons return.

Rather than agonize about it, I recognize that it is what it is, and I start looking to what the Captain has to say. Well, he says "Repent!", which I do, and "Stop sinning", which I do sometimes, but return to the vomit.

So I look at what else he said, and I see that he says that great sins are forgiven to those who forgive, but that those who are unforgiving pay those sins in Gehenna, and stay there in Gehenna until the last penny is paid.

Gehenna sounds Purgatorial to me. I think Purgatory is right there in the Scripture, right out of Jesus' mouth, and that Gehenna/Purgatory is quite different from the Lake of Fire.

Gehenna is for a time - UNTIL the debt is paid - which may be until the end of time, but the Lake of Fire is after judgment, and if you're thrown in there, that's the second death, and for good. Two different places, with two different purposes. One is debtor's prison for the debt of sin. The other is a place of execution, with no hope of rising again: you're disgusting, and you're DONE for good, because you're not going to soil the carpets in the City of God.

Because Jesus is the only Judge, nobody enters the City except by passing his judgment. That's what he means when he says that none comes to the Father except through him. He is indeed the gate - he judges.

But he judges by DEEDS, not my beliefs in the head. He said that. And that - and Gehenna - are why there is hope for non-Christians who are virtuous pagans, who do the proper deeds (because of their own traditions) and who are forgiving.

Jesus defined "belief" in him as doing what he said. He asked point blank: "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't do what I say." That's the whole answer to those who say that belief that Jesus is the Son of God is the key to entering the City. Jesus said no, it's deeds that are the key.

Therefore, deeds are the key, and the arguments to the contrary are wrong. I don't think Paul said otherwise, if he's read write, but if Paul DID say otherwise, then Paul was wrong too, because Jesus was God, and Jesus trumps all else.

And the REASON I believe all this? Because of direct personal miracles, and direct revelations, and the corroboration of the truth of Christianity by physical miracles (Shroud, Lanciano, Incorruptibles, Lourdes Healing), the complete LACK of any comparable miracles for any other faith). So, it's true that Jesus was divine, and I saw him, the Dove, the City, etc. But he didn't tell me anything specific. The little bits of conversation I had with God were about PHYSICS, and had nothing to do with standard religion. So I'm left with no greater knowledge than anybody else about what God WANTS - I just know for sure that God IS.

I'm left, then, with a Jesus who is, but who is content free...and the only place that I can see what Jesus said is the Scriptures. Therefore, the Gospels and Revelation, where he speaks (and the first couple of chapters of Acts), are THE Scriptures that count, and everything else is background material or human reaction to that.

Of course I read Scripture so that it all corroborates Jesus, and where there is tension, I diminish or disregard the Scripture that contradicts Jesus. Then I work hard to see if I can make the contradictions go away. I find with Paul that I can, but it's a lot of work. I find that most of my disagreements with other Christians is because Christians love what Paul said far more than they love what Jesus said.

I obviously cannot follow anybody there. PAUL never embraced me or dove into my face or grabbed my arm. Jesus and the Dove and God did those things. Paul and I both serve them. I love Paul, and I don't think that he thinks differently than me, really. But I do think that millions of Christians really misread Paul and set him in opposition to Jesus, and given that tendency that I see, I never quote Paul as authority for anything. I always quote Jesus directly, or Elohiym or YHWH. All authority that I ever cite are words spoken directly by God in Scripture, never words spoken ABOUT God by men, be they prophets or apostles. This is not because I don't treasure them, but rather, because I find Christians to be contentious and assertive of authority, but it's really hard for any Christian to argue with GOD. And Jesus himself said so many dozens of time 'deeds, Deeds, DEEDS' that it's perfectly clear what HE expects, anyway.

That ended up being a tour-de-force answer, but why not? There are so many open questions on so many threads, I figured I'd just answer them all at once, magisterially, for me, and give my actual judgments on the matter, and the reasons WHY I believe what I believe (and why I believe at all).

Having done that, I can recede into the background, because what else is there to say? I'm not suggesting that everybody fall in line behind me, first of all because I know they're not going to, and secondly because I never would have myself without divine revelation. That's why I emphasize the physical miracles so very much: because they CAN prove the divinity of Christ and existence of God to anybody who will really look.

I've become repetitive. Time to cut this off. Good night!

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19 23:46:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 157.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com