[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: 69947
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 # 176.

#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  


#116. To: SOSO, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#110)

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

I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   16:55:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#116)

I think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.

Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   17:25:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: SOSO, redleghunter, A Pole, Orthodoxa (#121)

think what he is saying is that the Orthodox see this as a mystery and don't ascribe to a doctrine of transubstantiation.

Do the Greek Orthodox eat and drink of Christ's flesh and blood as A Pole says Christ commands or don't they?

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/14/the- doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

In this confession of faith enjoying wide acceptance throughout the seventeenth century Orthodox Church, Patriarch Dositheus teaches that Christ is “truly and really” present in the Eucharistic elements. He does not mention here the timing of the change, but simply that the bread and wine are “transubstantiated” (again, ¼µÄ¿ÅïÉùÂ) into the “true Body” and “true Blood” of the Lord.

340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?

In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: “It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)

Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church by St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1830)

In St. Philaret’s catechism, we are given the first distinction between the Eastern and Western description of transubstantiation of which I’m aware.

Writing in the nineteenth century, Philaret says that transubstantiation is not a reference to the change itself—since none can possibly understand exactly how/when this takes place—but that it is merely a reference to our Lord being “truly, really, and substantially” present in the Eucharist. In other words, it is not a reference to metaphysical or nominalist philosophy (as with Aristotle, for example), but is speaking to the reality of the change, albeit as beyond our comprehension.

In a sense, it is impossible to draw a true comparison between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox viewpoints on this issue, since only one communion has dogmatically ruled on the question.

In their dialogues and disputes with the Protestant reformers, the Latin Christians dogmatically ruled a number of issues that had previously been left to relative mystery—or were not as “officially” defined as at the Council of Trent and following.

In the rare cases where the Orthodox Church has responded to the arguments of the Reformers, the word transubstantiate is used to clarify the Orthodox position, in contradistinction from the positions of both Luther and Calvin (among others). However, this has never risen to the level of dogma, nor has it been ecumenically mandated. In other words, the Orthodox clergy were (wisely) using the words of their own day to differentiate themselves from the Protestants, while not necessarily painting themselves into a dogmatic corner. And it should be noted too that Scholasticism itself is not wholly foreign to Orthodoxy, nor is it exclusive of the West.

In the end, while I appreciate the aim of Dr. Dunn’s post, I think on this particular point he has overstated his case.

As Orthodox Christians, we must be careful to balance and nuance our claims, especially with regards to the Latins or “the West.” The last thing we want to do is oversimplify matters to the extent of seeming deceptive or—perhaps worse—misinformed. After all, this is typically what gets thrown our way from those unfamiliar with Orthodoxy (beyond literature), often justly putting us on the “defensive” (an important distinction from “triumphalism”) in response to such misrepresentations. That being said, I’m open to feedback if anyone (Roman or Orthodox) thinks I’ve misrepresented one side or the other in this article.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   18:09:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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.

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


Replies to Comment # 176.

#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.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-20 02:28:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 176.

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