[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: 69679
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 (1-22) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#23. To: Orthodoxa (#18)

I have to say your anecdote was hilarious:)

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-18   20:20:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fibr Dog, BobCeleste, Orthodoxa (#2)

As you likely recall, I've posted articles on these mask fragments over the last few years. It is very exciting to finally see them and hear what the scholars have to say.

I know Gary must be as impatient as a kid on Christmas morning, waiting for these fragments to finally be presented to the public.

The scoffers among the textual critics will finally have to shut up and stop saying that none of the Gospels could have been written in the first century.

For those with an interest in ancient manuscript families, this is very exciting.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-18   20:22:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Orthodoxa (#19)

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?

Good point. I would add, however, they argued more specifically for the Deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-18   20:23:59 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#21)

Yeah FB is a good pick up off LP waivers:)

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-18   20:26:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: redleghunter (#17)

Some theologians in the 19th century claimed if we took all the writings of the early theologians we could transcribe the same NT today.

Of course they did. But doing it vs. claiming it are two different things.

"So this fragment will not be as earth shaking as some think it will be. It will either confirm the Alexandrian text we have today or be deemed an unconfirmed source."

That is what I am betting.

"What the fragment can confirm is that books about Jesus Christ were in wide circulation prior to the close of the 1st century AD. Which would put to rest the Jewish conspiracy theories that Jesus Christ was a second century machination of heretics."

I would venture to say that that would be earth shaking to those Jews.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   20:27:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)

You want to put some money on it?

ping #8. Do you want to put money on that?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   20:29:34 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: TooConservative (#26)

Hopefully those of us who do take an interest in these matters will keep the fires kindled here.

I also cannot wait for these fragments to determine Scriptures before the close of the first century. All those Talmud fairy tales will be put to rest along with reams of 19th century liberal junk theology.

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-18   20:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#23)

I have to say your anecdote was hilarious:)

Thanks! The pastor there has become a friend, and I still enjoy kidding him about it. ;)

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:38:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: redleghunter (#25)

Good point. I would add, however, they argued more specifically for the Deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

Indeed so, even He who is one is essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:41:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: TooConservative (#26)

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.

Very well said, and I agree. Especially for a Protestant, if their Church declares the Nicene Creed (and the overwhelming majority do indeed do that) then I would think that they would wish to read the source materials for themselves.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Orthodoxa (#18)

Of course by my moniker it is obvious that I would argue that the Orthodox Church is the truest representation of the original. Roman Catholics would argue for their Church. But both the Romans and Orthodox know that we were both the same Church for over a thousand years, that split apart in the Great Schism.

Actually, I would say that the Orthodox and the Roman Churches are both true representations of their originals. The East was ALWAYS like that, because the East is so many ancient cultures, with so many languages and really old cultures, living cheek-to-jowl, that it was inevitably ethnic and local.

The West was conquered by Rome in two big gulps: the Carthaginian wars swallowed a ramshackle slave empire whole, and the conquest of Gaul and southern Germany and Britain essentially unified all of the Celts under Roman rule. So in essence the West, by the time of Nicaea certainly, really had a common culture, a common language, and a common gov't. There were local variations, but the west was civilized and only became literate for the first time under Rome. The West was very deeply and profoundly Latin, essentially a monoculture until the Germanic barbarians came, and the Germanic barbarians, though tribal, were themselves one broad culture too.

So, in the West, the Latin Church really was LATIN, in every sense, because the whole Roman West was Latin.

The East - a completely different story. In the East, a distant Roman overlordship ruled the provinces of a conquered set of ramshackle Greek imperial states that were themselves haphazardly imposed atop of really ancient cultures and languages that go all the way back to the times of the Torah. Egypt, Babylon, Canaanite, Assyrian, Phonecian, Hittites, Armenians. Governments changed, and languages evolved, but these people were always different cultures, markedly so, and all of the empires organized themselves on cultural lines.

Sure, in the West everybody knew that Gaul was full of Gauls, and Italy, Italians, and they were "different", but they only ever knew the Roman alphabet, only ever read in Latin, only ever were organized under Roman law...Celt and Italian are like Sumerian and Babylonian - two different tribal sorts of Chaldean, but ultimately civilized under the same long empire from the beginning of literacy.

And the Church in the First Century came into those different places, and shaped to them. Orthodoxy fits the East, with its smaller units, it's really different and historically resistant cultures, its communalism. Catholicism fits the Imperial West that Rome as THE city from which the alphabet and literacy itself had come into lands that were organized for the first time and had paved roads put through them the first time by literal Romans, from Rome. Eastern "Romans" were mostly local Greeks, or Greek-speaking Jews like Paul: locals of citizenship, but of neither Latin culture nor language.

Looked at this way, the Eastern Orthodoxies, and the Oriental Orthodoxies, and Latin Catholicism, are all completely authentic - they reflect their original root structures and they all grew organically and embellished along the lines of their tendencies. Easterners are mystics, and Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy are heavily steeped in mystery and the glory of God. Westerners are Romans at root, and Romans were engineers par excellence, law-makers, and militarists, accustomed to vast armies and linear lines of authority.

Eastern Empires were historically characterized by centrifugal force - they tended to fly apart on ethnic and cultural and linguistic lines. Eastern Christianity survived that force intact, but did it through almost complete subsidiarity, with lots of small patriarchates and deep local organization.

The Latin West was characterized by centripetal force: all roads led to Rome - literally - and having an Imperator and Pontifex Maximum ruling as unitary head of vast areas of small cities and wide farms and wild hinterlands was the norm.

Also, the East was characterized by security until the Muslims showed up. It's a geographic cul-de-sac, with desert walls to the South and East, the Black Sea to the north, and Constantinople as a Minas Tirith-like bottleneck against any invader from the West. And so the Empire in the East endured, and protected, the Churches within for centuries and centuries.

The West was half wilderness, and across the frontier of the wild were...Wildlings...wild, violent savages in warbands, Vikings, really. The frontier was too long to guard without breaking the bank, but it had to be guarded or the barbarians WOULD come. There were a lot of them. Eventually, they broke the bank and the government and conquered, but they couldn't rule. So the Roman Church continued on, the only civilized and literate force, and it had no Emperor to either protect it OR to limit it from becoming the centralizing force. So it did.

I'd say that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are both completely authentic, and completely sincere, and they both really reflect the conditions of their respective regions when they were born.

And that makes unity hard. When there was a central emperor to hold it all together, it held. But when that was broken, unity held while the West was in disarray and foundering and floundering, while the East remained with the Emperor.

But once the West found its feet again, without Emperor, tensions multiplied.

Take the filioque controversy. My own view, having listened carefully to both sides, is that theologically BOTH are absolutely right: they're each focusing on a different meaning of the same words. But then you come to the structural issue of operating in common, and neither side CAN surrender what it knows to be true. But each has seen the other, at various times, as having nefarious motives. And frankly, at various points in the past, there WAS nefarious motive. Today, there's still theological tension between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but not very much of it. What there is is greatly exacerbated by long memories of wrongs, and by a view of the other as obdurate. Animal spirits operate to cause people to not WANT to move towards unity on anything but their terms (because the other side is WRONG, and deep down must KNOW IT, because both sides are so similar).

It's not Cain and Abel (though at times it looked like it might become that). It's Jacob and Esau. The good news is that Jacob and Esau did finally reconcile completely, in brotherly love, their old father Isaac lived to have the joy of their reunion, and ultimately the two brothers buried their father together and remained united until the end of their days. It was not until hundreds of years later that their respective heirs fought again.

So there is hope of reunion, someday, maybe even before the end of the world.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-18   20:52:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

As is often the case, well said Vicomte.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   20:58:21 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SOSO (#13) (Edited)

Exactly which Church was that? The Roman Catholic? The Pro-testants (each and every one of them)? The Greek Orthodyx? The Armenian Orthodox? etc., etc., etc.

Easy. In which language the New Testament was written? Latin? German/English/Swedish? Greek? Armenian?

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-18   21:05:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Orthodoxa, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#30)

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.

Athanasius led a great Christian life, a titan of the ancient church. In many ways, more admirable than Augustine and some others of considerable reputation.

Too bad they couldn't include a reference to Athanasius' fiery defender, Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari.

Lucifer of Cagliari's surviving writings, all of which date from the period of his exile, are directed against Arianism and reconciliation with heresy. His works are written in the form of speeches delivered directly to Constantius and repeatedly address the emperor in the second person throughout. His main writings are Moriundum esse pro Dei filio (It is Necessary to Die for the Son of God), De non conveniendo cum haereticis (On not meeting with heretics), De regibus apostaticis (On apostate kings), De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus (On not forgiving those who transgress against God) and the two books of Quia absentem nemo debet iudicare nec damnare, sive De Athanasio (That no one ought to be judged or damned while absent, or On Athanasius). His texts quote extensively from the Bible and so are useful as sources for the Vetus Latina. Also extant is a pair of letters which are allegedly correspondence between Lucifer and the emperor's secretary Florentius on the subject of some of Lucifer's inflammatory works that he had sent to Constantius.

Not a mousy guy. If the emperor killed him for it, he was going to say what he passionately believed. He had much of the stuff of the early martyrs of the church: "Here I stand, I can do no other" as Martin Luther would say. He had the kind of passion that characterizes some of Paul's best writing. As much as scripture councils us to be obedient to secular authority, these early Christians went well beyond what most would imagine. It is a challenge to see them as living out their ordinary daily lives as these events unfold. Christianity was revolutionizing Roman society. We find it difficult to grasp what a profound change this was to a Roman empire mired in paganism and philosophy.

Athanasius had to have been a man of considerable personal charisma as well as being a practical bishop, a man who possessed a shrewd and subtle view of the conflicts of his era and the future of the church as a state religion.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-18   21:06:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: TooConservative (#39)

Not a mousy guy. If the emperor killed him for it, he was going to say what he passionately believed. He had much of the stuff of the early martyrs of the church: "Here I stand, I can do no other" as Martin Luther would say. He had the kind of passion that characterizes some of Paul's best writing. As much as scripture councils us to be obedient to secular authority, these early Christians went well beyond what most would imagine. It is a challenge to see them as living out their ordinary daily lives as these events unfold. Christianity was revolutionizing Roman society. We find it difficult to grasp what a profound change this was to a Roman empire mired in paganism and philosophy.

Athanasius had to have been a man of considerable personal charisma as well as being a practical bishop, a man who possessed a shrewd and subtle view of the conflicts of his era and the future of the church as a state religion.

Your own summary probably reveals why Athanasius was canonized as a Saint and Lucifer of Cagliari was not.

While Athanasius unquestionably did not give a weak defense of Orthodox doctrine, even though he was often treated cruelly and spent much of his life in exile, he reportedly was so kind to his opponents when he was reinstated that even they could make few criticisms of him.

Of course, that isn't to say that even amongst the canonized Saints they did not have moments of losing their temper... reportedly St. Nicholas of Myra (that's right, the original Santa Claus) was so upset when he first heard Arius declare his heretical teaching that he went up and punched him in the face. Nicolas was a simple rural Bishop with a poor vocabulary as well, so after he punched Arius he was removed from the Council and briefly deposed from office. Reportedly, a number of Bishops then had a dream on the same night where they saw Jesus Christ handing Nicholas his Gospel Book back and Mary handing him his Bishop's vestments.

They decided to give St. Nick another chance, and the rest is history. ;)

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   21:28:58 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A Pole (#38)

In which language the New Testament was written? Latin? German/English/Swedish? Greek? Armenian?

In which language did God speak to Adam and Adam to God?

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   21:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Orthodoxa (#40)

While Athanasius unquestionably did not give a weak defense of Orthodox doctrine, even though he was often treated cruelly and spent much of his life in exile, he reportedly was so kind to his opponents when he was reinstated that even they could make few criticisms of him.

There is little doubt that these are pretty factual accounts, not mere legend. Athanasius was a far greater figure but Lucifer had a certain passion and role in history that contrasted with Athanasius. It makes Lucifer a memorable ally and gives some insight into the views of bishops of the era, offers something of the flavor of these figures of the era.

Some of these early church figures played incredibly powerful roles in their era with repercussions for every Christian ever since, regardless of their church affiliation.

By any measure, they led great Christian lives.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-18   21:50:23 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Orthodoxa (#44)

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

The Greek language of today is not the Greek language of 300AD and the that of 400AD not that of 100 AD. The meaning, nuances of words and idioms in any language change over time.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   22:02:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: TooConservative (#43)

There is little doubt that these are pretty factual accounts, not mere legend. Athanasius was a far greater figure but Lucifer had a certain passion and role in history that contrasted with Athanasius. It makes Lucifer a memorable ally and gives some insight into the views of bishops of the era, offers something of the flavor of these figures of the era.

Some of these early church figures played incredibly powerful roles in their era with repercussions for every Christian ever since, regardless of their church affiliation.

By any measure, they led great Christian lives.

Indeed so, and many of the Bishops of that era still affect us in many ways today.

I mentioned Nicholas of Myra, and of course most of the modern pop-culture of Santa Claus are fun flights of fancy (I recall Santa coming to the defense of Dr. Who in a holiday special ;P) But even there, the kernel of that Christian living out his Faith still profoundly affects us today.

Because Nicholas isn't remembered for profound sermons, or his fist-fight with Arius. He's remembered because as a simple country Bishop he was known for secretly leaving gifts for poor children so that they wouldn't be sold into slavery. Well over a thousand and a half years later, his mythologized figure still inspires some people to be kind to the less fortunate for at least a short season of the year. :)

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   22:02:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#45)

The Greek language of today is not the Greek language of 300AD and the that of 400AD not that of 100 AD. The meaning, nuances of words and idioms in any language change over time.

That's true, but that does not mean that educated Greeks do not understand their own language, even when it is using some old idioms.

My point is that often we in the English-speaking world act as though no one understands the source material anymore, and that just isn't true. Educated Roman Catholics can still read the Vulgate and as mentioned educated Greeks can still read the old Greek. For that matter, there are still a few pockets of the Orthodox Church where people worship in Aramaic.

And there are TONS of educated Protestants who have learned the ancient languages as well. J.R.R. Tolkien was one of the translators of the Revised Standard Version, and he was a linguistic genius, as just one example.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   22:09:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Orthodoxa (#47)

The Greek language of today is not the Greek language of 300AD and the that of 400AD not that of 100 AD. The meaning, nuances of words and idioms in any language change over time. That's true, but that does not mean that educated Greeks do not understand their own language, even when it is using some old idioms.

In the same vein. The King James is easy to understand even though it is in old English.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-18   22:10:57 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: SOSO (#49)

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.

I agree with that.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-18   22:13:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: All (#46)

I recall Santa coming to the defense of Dr. Who in a holiday special ;P

I couldn't resist.

Orthodoxa  posted on  2015-01-18   22:43:53 ET  Reply   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa, ALL, best comment of the new year (#49)

SOSO "The Word Of God is for all men. I(t) 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".

Hear! Hear! Best comment of the New Year! MHO!

Murron  posted on  2015-01-18   23:11:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Murron (#54)

Best comment of the New Year!

Don't know about that but it is what I earnestly believe.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-18   23:14:58 ET  Reply   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   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   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: ALL (#24) (Edited)

I know Gary must be as impatient as a kid on Christmas morning, waiting for these fragments to finally be presented to the public.

Why would I be impatient? I started laughing when I saw this post, because I just happened to be taking several courses from Dr. Craig Evans regarding this and other subjects. I already know what's there, but cannot comment. Go to this link, and look at the various courses I'm taking under Dr. Evans. Note carefully, you can watch a small clip of the video under each course, I think you'll find them very interesting.

https://www.logos.com/product/43029/mobile-ed-craig-a-evans-new-testament-backgrounds-bundle#003

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   0:26:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Orthodoxa, TooConservative (#44)

Some of the English translations are deliberately simplified to help evangelize less educated people -- for that purpose they work fine, but in a debate over some nuance in Scrip

I have to agree. Proper exegesis of verse, passage, chapter and book requires going to the original language of the text. Also taking into account the original audience as received in time.

There are some pet "doctrines" out there based on poor exegesis of the original language or lack of referring to the original language.

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   0:30:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: All (#60)

The Canon.

“You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of John; they could hear it only muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas mixed in with a lot of other things.

“When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.

“For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, ‘Let’s get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.’ I would say, ‘Thank you for nothing! We knew it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon.”

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D.

Paul joins OT and NT as both Scripture Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18 joins both Old and New Testament references, and calls them Scripture.
1 Timothy 5:18 (ESV) For the Scripture says, *“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, *“The laborer deserves his wages.” Deuteronomy 25:4 (ESV) [4] *“You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Luke 10:7 (ESV) [7] And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for *the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   0:32:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa (#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.

Well we knuckle draggers have resources as well.

When you have hundreds even thousands of various theologians agreeing on a lexicon, it is not hard to view these things. Especially on the web these days.

Here is one such source:

Blueletterbible.org

"Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn..." Hippolytus

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   0:35:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (64 - 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