[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: 69910
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

Comments (1-142) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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.

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.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-19   20:42:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: Orthodoxa (#143)

What this thread needs are more mummy masks.

I did like seeing the actual mask from which this papyrus fragment of Mark's Gospel was retrieved. I had read of it before but hadn't seen it.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   20:53:39 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#133)

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".

LMAO. Why couldn't you just have said no form the git-go? Keep the flames comoig, I appreciate the laughs.

I did not say no. What you asked does not compute to an Orthodox mind per the link I gave you.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   21:29:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: Pericles, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#146)

Do the rank and file parishiners at the Greek Orthodox eat the flesh (host, bread) and drink the blood (wine) of Christ at the mass? A simple question that even a simple minded person can answer yes or no. Why all the obfuscation?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   21:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: TooConservative (#92)

Just for fun, don't forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus. That always makes these discussion more interesting. : )

There are two answers.

The first is a dodge: go back to John the Baptist, to whom "all Jerusalem came to be baptized". So, the thief WAS baptized, as he was in Jerusalem, and "all Jerusalem" was baptized.

Of course this is one of many cases in Scripture were "all" very probably doesn't really mean "all", (Caiphas and Annas lived in Jerusalem, did THEY go out to be baptized by John? How about Pontius Pilate and his wife, who were also at Jerusalem.)

And of course, if "all" there doesn't mean ALL, at all - it can't - then "all" anywhere else may well not really mean ALL either.

The second answer is to remember that Jesus said men would be judged by their deeds. The thief (who isn't described as a "thief" in the text, actually), was already paying, hard, for his sins. (Dying on a cross is pretty hideous payment for sin.) He did a good deed to Christ, and Christ repaid him with Paradise.

Men really want to bind God with laws and rules, to say whom Christ can save and under what conditions. Men make plans and rules and God laughs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   21:37:59 ET  Reply   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: Vicomte13 (#148)

Men really want to bind God with laws and rules, to say whom Christ can save and under what conditions. Men make plans and rules and God laughs.

Exactly.

""And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?""

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-19   21:51:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: Pericles (#123)

"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.

Damascene speaks wisely. HOW God does it he hasn't told us, so we can't know.

THAT he does it is undeniable by anybody, for God has on occasion done it completely, visibly and physically, and at least one instance of that has been preserved, incorrupt, since the 600s: the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle is examinable, and has been examined: it is incorrupt heart tissue of the same rare AB blood type as is on the Shroud of Turin and Oviedo Cloth.

Transubstantiation is literally real, and God demonstrated it FULLY with the Lanciano Miracle, and preserved it so that every Thomas in the world can look and see, if he must.

So, why doesn't God do that all the time? Perhaps because it's gross. It's one thing to eat the body and blood of Christ in the species of bread and wine, and to believe. It is quite another thing to actually have to eat a piece of heart tissue and drink human blood. Thanks to Lanciano, God made it physically certain to anybody who really NEEDS to proof that yes, we really truly ARE eating the literal flesh (in fact, the SACRED HEART) and the literal blood of Jesus Christ when we take communion...but God is kind enough to allow us to do so in a way that is not so unpalatable that we would wretch up communion.

God gives us something normal and palatable, fruit of the field and of the vine, to be the host. We know it, we don't need to see it. If we really HAVE to see it in order to believe it, God did that for us too, and preserved it for all these 1450 years at Lanciano, so that we in our critical and forensic age can look, touch, prod, examine, test, and see that yep, it's real.

I myself find that IMMENSELY helpful, on God's part, to have done that for me.

Of course, it also traps me in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, because the people who really believe that the bread and wine literally transform are proven right by the concrete physical evidence God left to prove it.

Now, since transubstantiation is not directly in the Scripture, this is a case of a lasting physical revelation from God, through the clergy of the Church, that adds information to Christianity that is not contained in Scripture.

The Marian apparitions do the same regarding Mary.

The fact that God keeps erupting into the world and imparting additional revelation is something that cannot be contained in a belief system that forbids God to reveal anything else after the last sentence of Revelation, until the end of the world.

Alas, God wrote no such rule IN Scripture, and hasn't behaved according to the script that God wrote for him. Man makes rules and God laughs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   21:54:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: SOSO (#117)

And stop aiding TC, please.

????

"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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   21:59:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: TooConservative (#119)

It is simple. Good post.

"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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   22:01:10 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Pericles, TooConservative (#123)

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.

Thanks for the research. Did not know the Orthodox were Johnny come lately to the actual doctrine of transubstantiation. 17th century. Even with all the patristic writings where it could go either way. That's quite a leap for an ancient Church.

"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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   22:15:46 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: Pericles, SOSO, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#130)

the answer is yes even though the Orthodox don't have 'masses' and consider the Eucharist a holy mystery.

Well there you have it. What I was alluding to. Meaning the Orthodox don't have a mass where a priest commands Christ from seated at the Right Hand of The Father and be re-sacrificed, on command from a mortal human, and then take the form of a wafer and cup of wine?

I give a big Hooah for the Orthodox calling it a mystery.

"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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   22:37:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: redleghunter, Pericles, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa (#158)

Well there you have it.

It certainly took long enough to establish it.

"I give a big Hooah for the Orthodox calling it a mystery."

You mean all of it is not a mystery?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   22:43:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: Vicomte13 (#152)

course, it also traps me in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, because the people who really believe that the bread and wine literally transform are proven right by the concrete physical evidence God left to prove it.

If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   22:53:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: GarySpFC, Vicomte13 (#160)

If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.

What? Jesus is not a renewable resource? Wow, I missed that memo as well.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   22:54:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: SOSO (#94)

Please offer your defintion.

"Baptism" is the English word for "baptismos", which is the Greek word for "mikvah".

Mikvah is the Jewish practice of washing something in water to make it "clean" for ritual/spiritual purposes.

In synagogues, there are mikvah baths, into which Jews who need to be purified go. Women, for example, according to the Torah must be purified of their uncleanness once their menstrual flow ceases. To complete their purification, they must be baptized, which is to say, they must take a mikvah: go into the water and come out. This removes their spiritual impurity.

Similarly, hands must be washed before meals, and utensils, etc.

In simplest terms, a mikvah is a washing, a spiritual washing.

The interesting innovation of Christianity is that it was required only once, for once one were washed, one were cleansed of sin that existed before that, and then one faced God anew.

So, that's what baptism is: it's a spiritual washing. Why only once? Why it's necessary? Why anything...even HOW it is to be done - Scripture doesn't say.

Tradition has supplied an answer. Well, actually tradition has described a lot of different answers, and because it's believed to be NECESSARY, this becomes one of the solid points of combat (to wit: You MUST do it our way, or you have not completed a requirement, and therefore you shall BURN!)

To them. To me, it's a mikvah. No doubt there's some meaning to it, and God knows what that is, and he hasn't revealed it very clearly in Scripture. Lots of Churches have told me it's clear. I read the texts they read, and I don't see what they say in there. So I leave it with a shoulder shrug.

I was baptized as a baby. So, I've been baptized. Block checked. What matters is what Jesus said. He said a handful of lines about baptism. He said pages and pages about deeds. I listen to Jesus. He emphasized deeds, and barely mentioned baptism. Therefore, that is precisely the relative importance of these two things. Because Jesus said so, and he's God, and all of the men yammering about these things share one thing in common: they're not.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   23:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: GarySpFC (#160) (Edited)

If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.

It does? I don't see how that follows at all, frankly. God made human flesh out of powder. God made the world out of nothing. God makes as much flesh and blood as he needs to make, whenever he pleases. And it pleases him to do it in the eucharist, because he said that it's his flesh and blood, and demonstrated at Lanciano circa 600 AD (and elsewhere) that he meant it literally by leaving us the heart tissue and blood to prove it.

For me, there's no way to get around transubstantiation because the Lanciano miracle is physical proof that its true, and all that can be arrayed against it is words of opinion, and such words are wind. Wind versus actual blood and tissue.

For me it's a slam dunk, unless the scientists are lying. They could be. The forensics of the Lanciano miracle are not nearly as well-attested as the Shroud of Turin studies.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   23:07:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: SOSO (#161)

What? Jesus is not a renewable resource? Wow, I missed that memo as well.

scripture?

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   23:08:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: Vicomte13 (#163)

Your slam dunks fall a little short.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   23:12:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: GarySpFC (#164)

scripture?

I know that I am going to regret this but where?

Is there still a human nature of Christ?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   23:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: SOSO (#166)

12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,”a dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Re 1:12–18.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   23:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: Vicomte13 (#168)

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.

I am old and the fire still is lit. Fortunately there aren't many opportunities to act on it outside of the accepted boundaries. Dear God, please make Jimmy Carter be wrong!!!!!!!!!!

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   23:54:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: GarySpFC (#167)

I knew I would be sorry. What the heck does this have to do with the consumption of the Eucarhist forms with the diminshment of Christ's human side?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   23:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: GarySpFC (#160)

Another question I have is:

Were the disciples literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ as He stood in front of them during the Last Supper (during the Passover seder); which was before His crucifixion?

Then, after the resurrection were Christians literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the resurrected and glorified 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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   0:35:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: SOSO (#109)

"For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian."

What would they say about Caholics, the mryiad of individual Protest-ant sects, the various Orthodx sects?

They usually say that Catholics and Orthodox are the main stream Christians, while numerous Protestant sects that were founded after Luther and Calvin are marginal Christians.

They treat the first seriously the second with some disdain. Mormons or JW they see as batty and not worthy of attention.

Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start? With the Indian history written by the most renown Hindu scholars, with the main-stream Vedanta schools, befriending main-stream Hindu, visiting India? Or would you start with a random American street follower of some West based guru, like "don't worry be happy" guy?

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   0:42:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: SOSO (#147)

a simple minded person can answer yes or no. Why all the obfuscation?

You tone is not reverent enough. You got sufficient answers, so we can move on.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   1:24:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: Vicomte13 (#155)

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)

Interesting and serious question. I put some thought into it over the years.

First while for the Latin Church the key notion is what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate, approved for the East it is what has power, efficacy, charisma, grace.

Using a medical analogy - a Latin will ask "is a given bottle of pills legal? Is it expired/out of date? For the Orthodox it is "will it work? will it help or cause harm?", "is it active?". ("valid" medicine might be useless, out of date medicine might be just fine)

So if a Catholic sneaks in and receives Orthodox Communion, this is my understanding what takes place. If he/she did in the irreverent spirit, I would be appalled and worried not so much at the disrespect, but at the thought of a spiritual toxicity that can results from the wrong use of heavenly medicine.

If a Catholic does it naively with reverence and fear the merciful God is the judge and physician. But if a Catholic is open to knowledge and instruction he has to know that by joining the Orthodox communion, he becomes de facto Orthodox and he is not allowed to go back to Roman Catholicism. He must ask for chrismation/confirmation, go through the steps recommended by the Orthodox priest or bishop to formalize and complete his belonging. Welcome to the fold, brother, do not look back :)

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   1:55:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: redleghunter (#156)

Thanks for the research. Did not know the Orthodox were Johnny come lately to the actual doctrine of transubstantiation. 17th century. Even with all the patristic writings where it could go either way. That's quite a leap for an ancient Church.

As I see it, Orthodox neither came to the doctrine of the transubstantiation, nor rejected it. They see it rather as unnecessary and undue. Why?

Because it brings the post-Aristitelian scholastic terms of substance, accidents, species without compelling dogmatic necessity. For the Sacrament it is sufficient to believe the words of Christ that Sacrament is true, real and necessary.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   2:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: GarySpFC (#160)

If that is true, then it follows that after you eat some of His flesh and drink His blood, then He is slightly less fully man.

The Fount of Immortality does not get diminished, the more drink the more is there.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   2:18:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: Vicomte13 (#162)

Similarly, hands must be washed before meals, and utensils, etc.

In simplest terms, a mikvah is a washing, a spiritual washing.

Do you wash your hands by sprinkling? Do you bath by sprinkling?

Just curious about Frankish/Latin hygiene habits. :)

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   2:21:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: A Pole (#176)

The Fount of Immortality does not get diminished, the more drink the more is there.

That is nothing more than speculation.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-20   2:28:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: redleghunter (#87)

Thanx

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-20   7:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: A Pole (#174)

First while for the Latin Church the key notion is what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate, approved for the East it is what has power, efficacy, charisma, grace.

Using a medical analogy - a Latin will ask "is a given bottle of pills legal? Is it expired/out of date? For the Orthodox it is "will it work? will it help or cause harm?", "is it active?". ("valid" medicine might be useless, out of date medicine might be just fine)

So if a Catholic sneaks in and receives Orthodox Communion, this is my understanding what takes place. If he/she did in the irreverent spirit, I would be appalled and worried not so much at the disrespect, but at the thought of a spiritual toxicity that can results from the wrong use of heavenly medicine.

Thank you for the comments and thoughts.

I will reply the way I see it.

I can't speak for the "Latin Church". And even though I am (partly) a Frank (not figuratively as a "Westerner", but literally, as a person of French origin whose people partly came out of Eastern France - a LITERAL Frankish French, besisdes also being a Basque and a Celt and a Saami and a Dane, from other branches of my family), I won't speak as a "Frank". I'll speak as me.

The Latin Church does indeed seem to be very concerned by what is licit, valid, legal, legitimate and approved. And the Eastern Orthodox do seem to be concerned by what has power, efficacy, charisma and grace.

I am concerned by all of those things. Let me give you a very simple example: I grew up around Jews, a lot of Jews. Half of the kids in my school were Jewish, and the only friends that I keep contact with from that era are Jewish. I live near New York City, where there are huge numbers of Jews. I've been to more bar and bas mitvahs than I can remember, and brises, and dinners. But I've never been to a Passover seder. I've been invited, but I always demur.

It is not from prejudice. I would like to attend, but I don't want to attend enough to go get myself circumcised. For, you see, I read the Torah too, and I see that strangers who sojourn with Jews, who want to eat the Passover, may do so, IF they are first circumcised. That is what YHWH said in the Torah.

Now, my Jewish friends say this is ridiculous as a reason to not come eat the Passover seder. They say that nobody, absolutely nobody, cares about that, and nobody would dream of asking, and that it's just weird that I even care about that, because it's not a rule of Judaism. And besides, we're not in Israel.

(And I think to myself - and further, the Temple's down so the ritual doesn't have sacramental meaning either.)

I hear all the logic, and it all makes sense. But then I hear YHWH saying very clearly: strangers who eat the Passover with you must be circumcised. So, perhaps the Jews don't care about the rule, and perhaps I think the whole body of rules has expired, but I am still not going to break an obvious rule given by God in order to eat a dinner. Because maybe God DOES care about his laws after all. He expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden for eating a piece of fruit, and killed them too. A Passover seder is a commemorative dinner that was ordained by God for a purpose. He put rules on it. I don't believe that men can change those rules, and I can't eat the meal according to the rules that God gave. So I won't. It's just as simple as that.

God speaks to different people in different ways. He spoke to the people of the East they way they need to be spoken too, and he spoke to the Franks the way we need to be spoken too. French people are not Greeks or vice versa, and neither would be happy or completely satisfied with the solutions of the other. That's just true. My mind is, without Christianity, logical, mathematical and somewhat severe, like Descartes or Paschal or any of the other mathematicians or scientists, or theologians, who have emerged from my race.

I do agree with the Greeks that all of the things Greeks care about matter, because they DO, to me anyway. But the things Franks care about matter also, every bit as much, to Franks anyway. It's not a pose. Greece and Rome came out of the Mediterranean Sea, but the Franks and Celts came out of the Northern Forests. We look at the world a little differently, and perhaps because the cold North is a harsher world, we are more in tune with the physical, logical, and rulebound aspect of it. It's easier to die in the North than the South, though Southerners don't live as long historically because of disease.

These things both matter. I'm just a small person in a big world, and I recognize that there are boundaries that were not established by caprice. I recognize that what the Orthodox are doing is just as sacramental as what the Celts and Franks are doing, but I recognize that it is different, and across a border, and I respect borders, because they are necessary for keeping the peace.

And perhaps Franks do know a bit more about how precious keeping the peace is, because we have smashed it to pieces so many times in our martial ardor. That's the other thing Franks have always been better than Greeks or Latins, or Germans or Celts at: war. That's why the Muslims didn't win, which is good. It's also why Constantinople was sacked, which is bad.

I think that things have settled out in peace at borders that make sense, and that the future requires diplomacy, not force. And I don't see breaking the rules in an exercise of individual liberty as helping anybody. It doesn't help Christian civilization for the reasons a Frank cares about (and those things matter, because people are hotheaded and they fight...at least Western people do). And it doesn't help the individuals for the reasons a Greek like you cares about either. And I myself, personally, think that BOTH concerns are licit, valid, and true - and that disregarding does not improve charity or grace.

The Orthodox are fully my brethren, as far as I am concerned. And I don't feel estranged from them at all. But our Churches are estranged, and that still has to be worked out before it would be right for me to walk into an Orthodox Church and take communion, for reasons similar to the reason I demur at eating Passover Seders. It's just not right, not yet anyway, and I know it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   7:43:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: A Pole (#172)

Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start?

At the best Hindu restaurant that I could find.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:13:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc, BobCeleste (#168)

Finally found what I was looking for. I think a bit ago we were discussing the difference between a backsliding Christian and an outright apostasy. Then I remembered something Gary posted some time back that "how" people die tells us a lot. Here's one example:

An awful death

William Pope was at one time a member of the Methodist Church and seemingly a saved and happy man. His wife, a devoted Christian, died triumphantly. After her death, however, his zeal for religion declined, and by associating with backslidden hypocrites he apostatised and walked the path of spiritual ruin. His companions even professed to believe in the redemption of devils. William admired them, visited pubs with them and in time became a complete drunkard. He finally became a disciple of Thomas Paine and associated with a number of deistical people. They would assemble together on Sundays to confirm each other in their infidelity and often amused themselves by throwing the Word of God on the floor, kicking it around the room and treading it under their feet.

One day William took seriously ill with tuberculosis. Mr. Rhodes visited him, exhorted him to repentance and confidence in the Almighty Saviour, and also prayed with him before leaving. In the evening, William again sent for Mr. Rhodes. He found William in the utmost distress, overwhelmed with bitter anguish and despair. He endeavoured to encourage him by mentioning several cases in which God had saved the greatest of sinners, but he answered, “No case of any that has been mentioned is comparable to mine. I have no contrition; I cannot repent. God will damn me! I know the day of grace is lost.”

Mr. Rhodes asked him if he had ever really known anything of the mercy and love of God. “O yes,” he replied, “many years ago I truly repented and sought the Lord and found peace and happiness. But I have turned my back on Him, scoffed at Him and now I am damned forever! I know the day of grace is past, gone, never more to return! I cannot pray; my heart is quite hardened. I have no desire to receive any blessing at the hand of God.” He then cried out, “Oh, the hell, the torment, the fire that I feel within me! Oh, eternity! eternity! To dwell forever with devils and damned spirits in the burning lake must be my portion – and justly so!”

William often and loudly repeated the reasons for his impending doom: “I have crucified the Son of God afresh, and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing! Oh, that wicked and horrible deed of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which I know I have committed.” He was often heard to exclaim, “I want nothing but hell! Come, o devil, and take me!” At another time he said, “Oh, what a terrible thing it is! Once I could, and would not; now I want and cannot!” He declared that he was best satisfied when cursing. He passed away – without God.

More here:

http://www.truegospel.co/articles/english/spiritual-devotion/257- death-bed- experiences

"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

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   1:25:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: SOSO (#181)

"Let me use an analogy, when you want to learn about Hinduism, where do you start?"

At the best Hindu restaurant that I could find.

So at what restaurant one would start learning about Fundamentalist Protestants?

Chick-fil-A?

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-21   3:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (184 - 202) not displayed.

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