[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: 69831
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 (1-66) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#67. To: SOSO (#42)

"In which language the New Testament was written?"

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

The Book of Genesis is not a part of New Testament.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   2:58:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. 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.

English of today is different from the King James English or Shakespeare. Yet it does not make Shakespeare a Greek writer.

Languages changes, does it mean that Mark Twain books stopped to be English?

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:19:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: SOSO (#49)

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. ... 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.

Many are illiterate and not capable to learn to read. Blame God for that - as He did not create everyone equal.

He also established an order and hierarchy. Some are leaders, teachers and shepherds, others are followers. Blame God for that and vent your anger if you wish.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:24:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Vicomte13, Orthodoxa (#35)

The Church in the west and in Rome was for a long time a Greek language church. As shown by the Greek martyrs of Lyon

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1570&C=1457

Also, you can see the earliest catacombs of the Roman popes are in Greek:

http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/percorsi_criptapapi.php

It is the most important and venerated crypt of the cemetery, called "the little Vatican" as it was the official burial place of nine popes and, probably, of eight dignitaries of Rome's 3rd century Church. In the walls you can still see the original inscriptions, in Greek, of five popes. On four tombstones, near the name of the pope, there is the title of "bishop", since the Pope was regarded as the head of the Church of Rome, and on two of them there is the Greek abbreviation of MPT for "Martyr". Here are the names of the five popes: Pontianus, Antherus, Fabian, Lucius and Eutichian. In the front wall was laid to rest Pope Sixtus II, a victim of emperor Valerian's persecution.

I am not saying all these Popes were ethnic Greeks, only that they used Greek as the language of the faith.

These seems to end when Constantine goes east. It looks like with the Roman empire moving its capital east the importation or emigration of Greeks to the west ended. The Roman empire was always bi-lingual but when Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, the west became almost solely Latin.

And then when the Barbarian Franks and Germans invaded they also changed the nature of the Western Church.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   3:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: A K A Stone, SOSO (#50)

God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

No, those who are saved are together and united. Those who perish are isolated and alone.

Jesus Christ prayed that His followers are one as He and The Father are one.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:31:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. 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.

Sorry, but the Greek version of the New Testament is superior to all others. You can rage and accuse, huff and puff and it will remain the plain truth.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: SOSO, Orthodoxa (#57)

Only a false Christian would presume to determine who is a traditional Christian and who is not, much less crow about it.

You got it wrong. A true Christian should not and cannot judge others (Christian or non Christian) ie how others are seen by God.

But certainly a Christian can judge and evaluate who is a traditional Christian.

More, even an informed smart non-Christian can evaluate this. For example an atheist or Buddhist can see that Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons are not traditional Christian.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:43:28 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Orthodoxa, SOSO (#47) (Edited)

he 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.

Protestants mention the incorrect statement that Greek of today is different from the Greek of the NT as some sort of justification for their sect somehow being on par with the modern Orthodox or to trivialize the Orthodox.

All languages change over time - from Homer to Pericles to St Luke's Greek but the Greek of the New Testament or the formal educated Greek of the Roman era is very much intelligible to modern Greek speakers.

SOSO are you claiming that Shakespeare's English is another language than modern English? The difference in NT Greek vs Modern Greek is less than the difference of English between Shakespeare and modern English and much less than the English of Beowulf.

If you are a modern Greek speaker you can time travel back in time to the Roman era and can be understood fine. Athenian Attic Greek was very refined and might cause problems in understanding but that is because it was a refined language of scholars, etc rather than the Greek of the market as Koine was.

And with some minor additions or subtractions the alphabet has been the same since Hesiod and the written works of Homer.

For example, take the word “barbarian” itself (which is of Greek origin): in Classic Attic Greek it would be pronounced [barbaros] with the B sound. In Modern Greek, it is [varvaros] with the V sound. In general, the second letter of the alphabet, beta, was pronounced as in Plato’s time, but was changed to [v] by the time the Gospels were written. Ironically, in the Latin west the Greek B sound was maintained for the word barbarian while in the Greek world that sound turned into a V sound.

That does not make ancient Greek a different language than modern Greek.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   3:53:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Pericles (#70)

It looks like with the Roman empire moving its capital east the importation or emigration of Greeks to the west ended. The Roman empire was always bi-lingual but when Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium, the west became almost solely Latin.

And then when the Barbarian Franks and Germans invaded they also changed the nature of the Western Church.

Interesting and good point. Did you come to it on your own, or is there some book you can recommend?

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   3:54:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: A Pole (#76) (Edited)

And then when the Barbarian Franks and Germans invaded they also changed the nature of the Western Church.

Interesting and good point. Did you come to it on your own, or is there some book you can recommend?

See this book The Latin church in the middle ages By Joseph Turmel, André Lagarde: https://books.google.com/books? id=PYwYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=the+frankish+latin+church&source=bl&ot s=VdOVaheS1K&sig=gc_gEHknk2s4UBlCVKgsZubnqE8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Mi8VLyCD8ScNsiZg dAD&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=the%20frankish%20latin%20church&f=false

If I recall the decline of true Latins as an ethnic race happened after Justinian's war of reconquest of Italy from the German tribes there. That war was so devastating that the Latins native population was almost wiped out. Justinian was of course not Greek nor was Constantine. Justinian and the Latins of the east - modern day Romanians and Vlachs in the Balkans

SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jire%C4%8Dek_Line

wanted to liberate their ethnic kin in Italy from the Germans who were ruling them in an abusive way. But after Justinian's victory the cities were mostly destroyed and Italy would never be able to hold its own against invasion hence the Papacy asked to be protected by the Franks - the Eastern Romans were now too weak to be a presence in Italy.

After that these Franks and Germans, who spoke a Germanized Latin became ethnically dominant. The Byzantine word for westerner was "Frank". We get the term "Lingua Franca" from the fact the Francs were dominant language and it was considered Latina and Frankish at the same time. Even in China the Byzantine term for westerner was from the Byzantine designation of Frank.

I should also add that for a long time, despite the loss of Greek in the Latin west the Greek and "Frankish" Latin churches were as one for like 500 years.

I think the western saying of "It's Greek to me" meaning it cant be understood or is too hard to understand is ironic seeing as a Latin aristocrat learned Greek probably before he could speak Latin (due to being raised by Greek nurse maids slaves and Greek teachers).

The "It's Greek to me" kind of encapsulates the Dark Ages the Latin west fell into where the language they used to speak to gain access to knowledge (Greek) became alien and unintelligible to them until the Renaissance.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   4:08:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Murron, Orthodoxa, Murron, A Pole (#54) (Edited)

OSO "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.

Of course. That is why Jesus chose Greek as the language of his Gospel. Which at the time of the Roman empire was understandable from Hadrian's Wall in Britain to India and from the Rhine to Ethiopia and will endure in the New Testament till Jesus the Christ (Greek word) returns. This is not being arrogant for Greek. It points out that Greek was the common tongue of the world and thus was the language that the world would be based on. The amount of Greek in the English language is astounding given the fact that English was not even a language until a 1,000 years after the NT was written.

Christ said he was the Alpha and Omega. I don't recall English translations changing that to the Ahe and the Zee.

Pericles  posted on  2015-01-19   4:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Orthodoxa (#47)

For that matter, there are still a few pockets of the Orthodox Church where people worship in Aramaic.

America has so destabilized the region and created such hatred for Crusaders (Christian nations) that there will soon be no Aramaic speakers left at all.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   6:38:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: A K A Stone, Orthodoxa, Zesta (#48)

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

A few days back, Zesta posted a piece by neoneocon, a blog writer. That piece linked to another post she wrote on Modernizing The King James Bible.

Worth a read, the comments too.

As for the underlying literary structure of the KJB, it was translated to a poetic meter which makes it vastly superior as a version that can be memorized. This is why older people who read the KJB can often quote extensive passages from memory. Younger people with their NIVs and NASBs or the ridiculous paraphrase BSO's (Bible-shaped objects) can't seem to quote more than a few verses. And these modern versions often do steal the wording of the KBJ in key passages even though their Greek manuscript sources do not actually support that. It is because those foundational verses really are so much more memorable in poetic meter.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   6:58:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: redleghunter (#17)

Which would put to rest the Jewish conspiracy theories that Jesus Christ was a second century machination of heretics.

?? Could you explain this, you know I'm a dummy when it comes to religion.

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

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-19   7:03:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: redleghunter, Orthodoxa (#61)

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

Many of those pet doctrines hark back to the ancient heresies from the first centuries of the Christian era. The powerful Christian message was seized upon by charlatans and used to try to gain followers or to promote their own writings or doctrine. We see the beginning of this in Paul's repeated warnings against false teachers. The other primary source of bad doctrine is dipping into the various Old Testament writings and applying them to Christians when this actually rejects the entire notion of Christianity as a New Covenant with God. You don't have a New Covenant if you keep trying to inject the Old Covenant back into it. In the early centuries, this was often called Judaizing because the early church was so dominated by Jewish Christians. But the tendency to overthrow Christian liberty and replace it with the strictures of legalistic Judaism has not gone away and we can find it cropping up throughout the history of the churches.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   7:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: SOSO (#49)

God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

Except for baptism, at least...

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   8:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: TooConservative (#80)

This is why older people who read the KJB can often quote extensive passages from memory.

My kids used to go to christian school. They had memory verses every week. Some quite long. It would have been hard for me to do some of that memorization. They did good. They also got mad at me because I told them they weren't allowed to use the NIV for memorization.

It always kind of bugged me that they even had the NIV as an option. It was NIV or KJV.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-19   9:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Vicomte13 (#83)

Except for baptism, at least...

Or Communion which means communion.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-19   9:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: A Pole (#85)

Except for baptism, at least... Or Communion which means communion.

A literalist could say that he's communing with God when he remembers Christ while eating bread and wine. Traditionalists would not agree, but literalists don't care whether they agree or not.

But baptism is the first hard point in a "Me and God alone" approach, because there is no way to read baptism in Scripture to not see that it must be done TO you BY another. You can't baptize yourself.

That reality forces the literalist to do one of two things:

(1) Turn on Scripture itself and say that it's not authoritative, and therefore you CAN baptize yourself, OR

(2) Say that the "good thief" wasn't baptized, but Jesus promised him Paradise that day nevertheless.

(There are, then, two responses to that, and so on.)

The bigger questions from (not to you, but in general to those who say we don't need organized religion or scripture) me are pretty straightforward: if we discard organized religion, as has been suggested, and then also discard Scripture as unreliable, and just rely on "The Holy Spirit" to tell us, how do we know that the spirit that's talking to us is Holy? Mohammed did that, rejecting both the pagan temples of his region and the Christian Church of the neighbors, and he wrote his own book, inspired by the spirit that spoke to him.

Was Mohammed inspired by God? He certainly thought he was, and he had tremendous success and victory (and so does Islam) to prove it in the real world too.

So, is Allah the Holy Spirit? No? How do you know? Because Islam preaches evil. But how do you know what is evil; the spirit told Mohammed that evil is good.

If we lived in the world with only one spirit, the Holy Spirit, then we could just chuck organized religion and scripture and rely on the inner voice. But we live in a world in which Satan and demons can also speak to us internally. Without the fixed reference points of institutions and Scripture, why would Sam Berkowitz NOT kill all those people that God told him to kill, directly out of the mouth of his neighbor's German Shepherd?

The biggest problem with rejecting organized religion and written texts and just relying on the Holy Spirit alone is that the Holy Spirit isn't the only spirit out there in the marketplace of ideas, and without the institutional reference points, we have no way of judging whether the spirit talking to us is Holy or not… other than our personal opinion.

I know in my case there are a few things I am told are sins that never troubled my conscience, at all, and that based on my inner light I don't think are sins at all. I have institutions and texts to tell me I'm wrong. If I throw those out, then the spirits that talk to me guide me to a lot of good, but also guide me to things that institution and tradition would call heresy or worse.

Invisible intelligent spirits that can read our thoughts and manipulate our bodies exist. I know this empirically. I also know that I, at least, do not have a detection mechanism that is sharp enough to always be able to tell the fair from the foul. Navigating what spirits say without the external reference points of institution and scripture seems to me like trying to fly through clouds without instruments. If you're a lucky pilot, you can do that a few times for short periods. Keep doing it, and you'll end up smashing into a hill or the ground, though.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-19   11:13:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: CZ82 (#81)

Chri stian Myth Theory

This is just a touch at the issue as atheists and skeptics picked up on this Jewish theory from long ago. There are other sites which claim Gentiles made up Jesus from a Greco/Roman 'messiah' story. Thus claiming Christianity had pagan origins. There's loads of kooky stuff out there if you can imagine.

"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   11:31:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: TooConservative (#82)

But the tendency to overthrow Christian liberty and replace it with the strictures of legalistic Judaism has not gone away and we can find it cropping up throughout the history of the churches.

In which the Council of Orange addressed Pelagianism and semi Pelagianism.

"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   11:33:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#83)

Except for baptism, at least...

Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water. As Phillip was sent to explain the Gospel to the Ethiopian and then baptize him.

"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   11:34:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: A Pole (#85)

Or Communion which means communion.

Good point. We are commanded to loving share, commune in the Lord's Supper.

"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   11:38:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Vicomte13 (#86)

The bigger questions from (not to you, but in general to those who say we don't need organized religion or scripture) me are pretty straightforward: if we discard organized religion, as has been suggested, and then also discard Scripture as unreliable, and just rely on "The Holy Spirit" to tell us, how do we know that the spirit that's talking to us is Holy? Mohammed did that, rejecting both the pagan temples of his region and the Christian Church of the neighbors, and he wrote his own book, inspired by the spirit that spoke to him.

Boom.

"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   11:39:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: redleghunter (#89)

Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water. As Phillip was sent to explain the Gospel to the Ethiopian and then baptize him.

Let's say an atheist, Robinson Crusoe, was stranded on a desert island with only a Bible. He read it and became a Christian but worried over the phrases about "believe and be baptized" as commanded in scripture.

Well, you see the problem.

Let's say Friday shows up and he becomes a Christian too. Now we have two unbaptized Christians. Can an unbaptized believer baptize others?

Or should both Robinson and Friday die as unbaptized Christians?

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

Here is a decent page on the topic that does not account for what Jesus said to the thief.

So is baptism a work of man? I always thought these disputes are why Baptists slyly refer to both communion and baptism as "ordinances", not sacraments. And, miraculously, no one asks pointed questions about the differences between the two.

It always seems to me that the importance of baptism is in receiving it as a believer, not in the spiritual merits of the one who baptizes. Which opens up an entirely different can of worms for those who might want to dispute the topic.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   12:06:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#86)

If we lived in the world with only one spirit, the Holy Spirit, then we could just chuck organized religion and scripture and rely on the inner voice. But we live in a world in which Satan and demons can also speak to us internally. Without the fixed reference points of institutions and Scripture,

Excellent insight. I dont' recall anyone here saying that there is no value, function, purpose to insititutuions and Scripture. I certainly never said that though I am certain some will accuse me of doing so. FTR I say that insititutuions and Scripture are imperfect and by themself insufficient in establishing a personal relationship with God, the missing ingredient being faith.

I asked Gary this question and in typical fashion he ducked it. I will now ask you all.

When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith?

Insitutions and Scripture certainly provide context and something physical to latch on to when the way gets dim and temptations come calling. They provide road signs. To many they provide encouragement to stay the course. They help nurture the first understandings of the child into more mature, adult commitment. But they are not perfect.

I find it amazing that some have expressed the belief that there is nothing to be learned from these new finds, or any potential new finds, that predate the earliest known writtings. IMO this is a profound demostration of a closed mind. To them it appears that the Council of Nicea is over and done and represents the end of the trail and has settled all issues about Christ and God.

I guess it is useless to ask them the what if question as they already know the answer and will likely quote some passage in Scripture to prove their contention.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   12:07:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Vicomte13, A Pole, All (#83)

God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

Except for baptism, at least...

Good point. I wasn't referring to the physical manifestations of church rituals but I did open the door and will have to walk throgh it. Unfortuantely I do not have time to do so right now.

But let's start with agreeing on what baptism is. Here's one definition:

Baptism (from the Greek noun ²¬ÀĹü± baptisma; see below) is a Christian sacrament of admission and adoption, almost invariably with the use of water, into the Christian Church generally and also a particular church."

Please offer your defintion.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   12:13:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: TooConservative (#92)

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

I understand your point. Usually good theology is not based on extreme situations; HOWEVER, those extreme situations we do see, DO tell us something.

I will read your link now.

"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   12:22:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: redleghunter (#95)

Just as the lawyers say that hard cases make bad law, it is also true that hard cases make bad theology.

We might relegate most of these arguments to being "unprofitable disputes".

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-19   12:28:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: TooConservative (#92)

"Baptism is equated with belief. To reject baptism is equated with disbelief. If one believes the message, they will accept baptism."

From the site you linked to me is the above quote.

Seems their premise is "if you believe, then believing is getting baptized." Makes sense as we see in Acts those who believed the Gospel were baptized.

I think the site is an apologetic for those churches that view baptism and the Lord's Supper as 'works' of the Law. Most of those churches also use the 'rightly dividing the word of truth' to mean the church did not start at Pentecost but mid or end of Acts.

Seems this site has such churches in mind.

"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   12:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: SOSO, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#93)

When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith?

When does a person first come to faith?

John 3:

7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Probably John chapters 1-4 for reference to address your question above. We are also told those who seek God will find God:

Isaiah 55:6-9King James Version (KJV)

6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)?

Parents are directly responsible for raising their children in the matter of God and faith...

Deuteronomy 6 New King James Version (NKJV)

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

Matthew 5:

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith?

John 3:

8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

"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   12:58:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: TooConservative, GarySpFc (#96)

Just as the lawyers say that hard cases make bad law, it is also true that hard cases make bad theology.

We might relegate most of these arguments to being "unprofitable disputes".

I agree. As Gary's friend Greg Finch pointed out in his article, if one proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, then why all the double speak...Obey Him and get in that water and proclaim that faith for the Glory of God. (paraphrase summary of course)

In Christian Baptism, someone is proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and this Glorifies God. It pleases the Father to see His Son's Holy Name proclaimed, to all others!

"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   13:03:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: A Pole (#73)

You got it wrong. A true Christian should not and cannot judge others (Christian or non Christian) ie how others are seen by God.

But certainly a Christian can judge and evaluate who is a traditional Christian.

Christians cannot judge the hearts or final destinations of anyone. However, we are commanded to try the spirits to see if they are from God. 1st John 4:1 to 4.

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   15:12:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: A Pole (#74)

"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."

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”

The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Jn 4:32.

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   15:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Vicomte13, SoSo (#83)

God relationship with men is individual, one-to-one with no human intermediaries required.

5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 1 Ti 2:5–6.

Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. As God He can hear our prayers, as man translate them as our mediator, and then bring our requests before the Father for answers.

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   15:34:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: GarySpFC (#101)

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.”

And also this:

John 4:

10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”(NKJV)

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-19   15:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: SOSO (#93)

I asked Gary this question and in typical fashion he ducked it. I will now ask you all.

When does a person first come to faith? In a typical Christian family, whether avid church goers or not, when does the child first hear of God and Jesus Christ? From who? How? When does God first reveal Himself to that typical Christian child (or any child for that matter)? When does God first offer that child the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit? When is that typical child first introduced to the concept of good and evil? When does he first understand the nature of such? When does he by his own volition freely choose to accept the gift of faith?

I have answered this question several times, but some don't listen.

The Word is very clear. To be saved in individual needs to place his faith in the Christ of the Bible, repent of his sins, be baptized by immersion, and walk by faith in Jesus Christ and in newness of life.

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

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-19   15:48:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: GarySpFC (#104)

I have answered this question several times, but some don't listen.

The question is when does faith first come not what is required for salavation. Yes, some don't listen.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   16:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, TooComservative GarySpFc, A Pole, A K A Stone, sneakypete, Pericles, CZ82, Zesta, (#98)

{Sigh}

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   16:25:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#89)

Indeed you do need another Christian to dunk you in the water.

No, you need another of your church to baptize you.

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-19   16:27:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (108 - 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